Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Traffic Congestion, London

Lieut-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Transport what recommendations he has received from the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee in regard to the traffic congestion in central London; and what steps he proposes taking to rectify the present confusion.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: asked the Minister of Transport when, and to what extent, he proposes to implement the findings of the Traffic Advisory Committee on traffic congestion in London.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I am most grateful to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee for their valuable and far-reaching report, which was recently published. Their recommendations can be divided into four main categories: (1) those which would require new regulations and, in some instances, legislation;

(2) those which can be dealt with by administrative action; (3) the problem of parking; and (4) recommendations about street improvements.
I am giving this report close personal consideration, and I hope to make a statement about it in the near future.

Sir T. Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the enormous increase in traffic which can be expected as a result of the Festival of Britain, and make his plans accordingly?

Mr. Barnes: I am only too well aware of that. Apart from the Festival, I recognise that this is a permanent problem which must be dealt with.

Mr. Fisher: While I am glad to hear the Minister say that, might I ask whether he will consider carrying out as quickly as possible those recommendations which do not involve the expenditure of large sums of money?

Mr. Barnes: Yes. That is why, I have provided for various forms of treatment.

Motor-Horns (Restrictions)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Transport what are the results of his inquiries on the proposal to make the sounding of a motor-horn in built-up areas illegal; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Mr. Barnes: I do not see any reason to extend the existing restrictions on the use of motor-horns.

Sir T. Moore: Is the mind of the Minister permanently closed against this


method, which has been tried out in Sweden and found successful in averting road accidents as well as making the life of the people much more tolerable?

Mr. Barnes: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my mind is not permanently closed on the subject of any traffic improvement. I am not convinced that this would be an improvement.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is the experience of every motorist—probably it has been his own experience—that he drives much more carefully when the horn happens to be out of action?

Mr. Barnes: There is some truth in that but, on the other hand, the warning given by the sounding of a horn often avoids an accident.

Mr. Nicholson: Not when a careful driver is driving. The Minister may have found that that is his experience.

Mr. Barnes: No. I consider that the Minister is a very careful driver.

Rights of Way (Maintenance)

Earl Winterton: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that instances occur on metalled roads of public rights of way being maintained by owners of the land which they traverse though joined to highway authority roads at each end; and if he will introduce legislation compelling highway authorities to maintain such roads where, after public inquiry, general usage of such road can be proved.

Mr. Barnes: I am aware of such cases. Some of these can be dealt with under existing statutes, but they arise in different ways and cannot all be treated alike. This is one of a number of features of highway law which could usefully be considered as part of a general consolidation and revision, but I do not think that the matter is so urgent or important as to justify special legislation.

Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these cases arise from the ancestor of the owner having made, at his own expense, a road where there was before an unmetalled road, thereby saving the then authority—

the parish authority—much money. Does he not agree that it is rather hard on the successor that he should have to keep up the road? Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to send him details of one or two cases where real hardship has arisen in this connection?

Mr. Barnes: Certainly. I have indicated that there are a variety of experiences in this direction. I should welcome any information of that kind.

Mr. H. Hynd: Where any road is maintained by a public authority, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that it will be taken over completely by that authority?

Mr. Barnes: I should not like to commit myself too far in that direction yet.

Signposts, London

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make arrangements to improve the method of signposting in and out of London with a view to these improvements being completed before the Festival of Britain.

Mr. Barnes: A temporary scheme for signposting the major routes in and out of London has been put in hand by the Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association in consultation with my Department and the local authorities concerned. This scheme will be completed before the Festival

Mr. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman make quite certain that the scheme is ample enough to give real guidance, not only on direct main roads, but also on parallel roads which are so frequently used, because, if the signposting around London remains as at present, there will be many lost sheep among the visitors to the Festival of Britain?

Mr. Barnes: I think we are all indebted to these two motoring associations for this voluntary task, which they undertake at their own expense. They have co-operated with my Department considerably. On the basis of experience, we hope progressively to develop a permanent system of signposting in London, but I would not like to commit myself at the moment as to how far it can be dealt with on the circular plan.

Mr. Janner: Will my right hon. Friend also consider the question of making clear the road names in London, so that people will know exactly where they are?

Mr. Barnes: I would remind hon. Members that I have to depend on the co-operation of a great many authorities in operating these schemes.

Mr. Gammans: Is the Minister aware that many signposts are too small and far too high? Will he say what he has done, or will do, as distinct from the motoring organisations, to signpost important roads, and apart from what he has done on the way to Dover?

Mr. Barnes: What we are concentrating on, departmentally and in an experimental way, is to get the three main port roads signposted: the London— Dover, London—Harwich and London— Southampton routes.

Appeal, Holmfirth

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Transport why, after an appeal by Messrs. G. W. Castle, Limited, to be granted an additional picking up point in Holmfirth had been allowed by his inspector on 16th September, 1949, and after his inspector had decided that the appellants be not required to pay the Minister's costs, he turned down the appeal in full and made an order for the payment of costs amounting to £31 17s.

Mr. Barnes: The decision in appeals of this kind rests with me. In this case, as I explained at the time to my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), who wrote to me on behalf of his constituent, I did not accept the inspector's recommendation because, as stated in the letter of 19th November, 1949, conveying my decision, there were not, in my opinion, sufficient grounds to justify my reversing the decision reached by the licensing authority after a public hearing. Costs were recovered from Messrs. Castle, as unsuccessful appellants, in accordance with the usual practice.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that to act as his own court of appeal, to reverse the decision of his own inspector, and, contrary to the inspector's advice, make an order for costs in his own favour, is a palpable and rather contemptible form of injustice?

Mr. Barnes: I entirely disagree with that. Hon. Members should not jump to conclusions. This represented a difference between the inspector and the licensing authority, and the licensing authority is one to whose views I should give very serious consideration in matters of this kind.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: rose——

Mr. Thorneycroft: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I ask my right hon. Friend——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: One ruling that I gave recently was that, when the hon. Member who asked the Question rose and said that he would raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment, that closed the matter. I gave no ruling so far as other Adjournments are concerned.

Mr. Mellish: In this particular case, and with very great respect, Mr. Speaker, had you not already called my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall)?

Mr. Speaker: Actually, I had called the next questioner, and then, as I thought that the matter affected the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman, and seeing that he rose, I called him; but, of course, the discussion was stopped quite definitely by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) giving notice to raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

Stopping Places, London

Squadron Leader Burden: asked the Minister of Transport how many omnibus, tram or trolley-bus stops in the area served by the London Transport Executive are sited within 25 yards of traffic lights.

Mr. Barnes: I regret that this information is not available. Bus stops are appointed and revised by the Stopping Places Advisory Committee on which the licensing authority, the police, the London Transport Executive and the Transport and General Workers' Union are represented. This Committee reports to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee.

Squadron Leader Burden: I asked the Minister this Question before, and I put it down in this way so that he could get the information. It is a very serious matter. In present circumstances of traffic congestion, does the Minister appreciate that if he would look into this matter again it would very probably ease the congestion considerably and avoid possible loss of life at these stops?

Mr. Barnes: I have no doubt that the Stopping Places Advisory Committee will note what the hon. and gallant Member has said, and, in any case, I will draw their attention to it.

Sir Herbert Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many members of this distinguished Committee drive vehicles themselves, and what is the value of their advice?

Park Lane (Surfacing)

Squadron Leader Burden: asked the Minister of Transport on what date the surfacing of the carriageway between Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch was completed; what was the cost; and why the new surface has deteriorated so rapidly.

Mr. Barnes: I assume that the hon. and gallant Member refers to the carriageway of Park Lane. This work was carried out by the Westminster City Council in July, 1950, and cost approximately £17,500. I understand that some small areas, mostly near bus stops, are not satisfactory and that the Council are investigating the reason for this.

Squadron Leader Burden: Is the Minister aware that I was referring to the carriageway inside the Park? As it appears from his reply that the Park Lane surface is equally bad, I shall have to put this Question down to the Minister of Works?

Mr. Barnes: I think that that is a most unfair allegation. The Westminster City Council maintains a very high standard of highways work and, because a limited part of some extensive work has been found to be faulty, I do not think one can blame the Council for that.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that, as it is only a little of the granite binding—the chippings—that have worked loose, and, as this is a new though very

satisfactory anti-skid surface, the Westminster City Council may be forgiven if the process is still in its experimental stage?

Mr. Barnes: I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the process of education should start on his own side of the House.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that this surface was so extraordinarily satisfactory from the beginning that half the motorists in London went that way to see how good it was?

Traffic Conditions, Ashwell

Mr. Nigel Fisher: asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of local representations, he will reconsider his refusal to confirm the Hertfordshire County Council traffic regulation for the institution of one-way traffic in Bear Lane, Ashwell.

Mr. Barnes: I have reconsidered this case very recently. I do not consider that the traffic conditions justify my confirming the county council's order. The volume of traffic is very small and the order would involve an inconvenient detour, especially for cyclists.

Mr. Fisher: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is a very narrow lane, with no footpath and with a high wall on both sides, and also that the people of this village, the local parish council and the Hertfordshire County Council all demand a one-way scheme?. In those circumstances, why should a Whitehall official with no knowledge of the local conditions be allowed to overrule all other opinions?

Mr. Barnes: I do not agree that a Whitehall official determines this matter. We have to take into consideration the claims of all those who use a highway of this description.

Subsidence, Cheshire

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Transport what grants-in-aid have been made by his Department during the past 10 years to restore damage to surface transport facilities between Manchester and Crewe which have suffered as a result of subsidence of land in that region due to brine pumping; and whether he proposes to


give any further assistance in this matter, in view of the increase of such subsidence recently.

Mr. Barnes: I do not make any grants specifically for this purpose. County councils receive each year grants from the Road Fund towards the cost of maintaining their classified roads which would include any expenditure falling on the Council in respect of such roads as a result of subsidence.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley - Davenport: Does not the Minister expect further very heavy subsidence in view of the collapse of the main railway line between Crewe and Manchester? Who is to pay for all this damage?

Mr. Barnes: If the railway is damaged, the British Transport Commission will have to meet that cost. I shall not have to meet it out of the Road Fund.

Trunk Road, Bristol (Resurfacing)

Mr. Leather: asked the Minister of Transport why there has been such a great delay in resurfacing the A4 Bristol trunk road between Bath and Keynsham; and why the residents in this particular area should be made to suffer inconveniences through the experiment.

Mr. Barnes: The volume and character of the traffic on this length of road made it suitable, when it was due for resurfacing in the ordinary course, for experimental work on the economies to be secured through using various mixtures of local materials in surfacing roads. With experimental work of this kind some of the lengths are bound to fail and have to be replaced. Replacement of some sections which failed recently has been delayed by unfavourable weather.

Mr. Leather: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while these experiments may be highly valuable, they cause tremendous inconvenience to those who have to use the road every day? When he carries out the next experiment, will he see that it does not take six months to clear up the mess?

Mr. Barnes: I will certainly bear it in mind.

Isle of Skye

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the recent deterioration of the state of the roads in the Isle of Skye; and what steps he proposes to take to mitigate the bad effects of a complete breakdown in road communications.

Mr. Barnes: I am aware that roads in Skye have recently suffered from alternate frost and thaw. The responsibility for the maintenance of these roads rests with the Inverness County Council and I understand that they are endeavouring to restore the roads as quickly as conditions permit. The County Council receive assistance from the Road Fund towards the maintenance of their classified roads.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that most of the roads in Skye are 40 or 50 years old and were not designed to carry some of the heavy traffic which they have to carry today? Unless something is done to improve the roads, the island will be reduced to packhorses for transport? Furthermore, in view of the importance of the tourist industry, will he consider taking over the main road from the Kyle of Lochalsh to the north of Skye as a trunk road, and see that it is constructed and maintained up to that standard?

Mr. Barnes: The Ministry have taken over many roads in Scotland in recent years, and made them trunk roads. I will certainly look into the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Vehicle Waiting Restrictions, Bridport

Mr. Digby: asked the Minister of Transport why he has decided to make an order imposing vehicle waiting restrictions in Bridport, Dorset, without holding a public inquiry, having regard to the opposition locally to this proposal; and whether he is prepared to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Barnes: I gave careful consideration to the objections made to the orders after advertisement and made certain modifications in the original proposals as a result. In the circumstances I did not think it necessary to hold a public inquiry. I expect the orders to work satisfactorily, but if they do not I should


be quite prepared to consider further representations after a sufficient time has elapsed to give them a fair trial.

Mr. Digby: Is the Minister aware that the local Chamber of Commerce, for example, is most dissatisfied?

Mr. Barnes: On the other hand, I understand that the local authority is satisfied. If, after a time, the hon. Member finds that this dissatisfaction still remains, I shall be prepared to reconsider the matter.

Road Haulage Permits

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a direction to the British Transport Commission to continue all existing road haulier permits until the Transport (Amendment) Bill has been reported from the Standing Committee.

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. The only powers under the Transport Act which would conceivably enable me to issue such a direction are those contained in Section 4, and these I am not empowered to exercise unless it appears to me to be in the national interest to do so.

Mr. Thorneycroft: How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly justify the right of the Commission to go on running these men out of business, contrary to the expressed view of the majority of the House of Commons?

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the House gives a Second Reading to a Bill it approves the principle of that Bill, and that the principle of this Bill was that the granting or revocation of permits should be referred to the licensing authorities? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that when both Houses of Parliament have approved of a principle the national interest demands some effort to give effect to the will of the people?

Mr. Barnes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman apparently is overlooking the fact that this is an amending Bill to an Act of Parliament which is already on the Statute Book. The Bill still has to go through certain procedure in the House, and until it has gone

through that procedure it does not override the obligations imposed by statute upon the Minister.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Is the right hon. Gentleman really telling us that when the House has given approval to a principle the administration of His Majesty's Government is not going to give effect to that approval?

Mr. Barnes: May I again remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I am empowered under the Transport Act to give a direction to the Transport Commission only if it is in the national interest. I fail to see that it is in the national interest that the Second Reading of this Bill should over-ride a statutory obligation imposed upon myself.

Mr. Bowles: Are we now to understand from the questions put by the Opposition that once a Bill has been carried on Second Reading they will never oppose the Third Reading of that Bill?

Mr. Keeling: Does the Minister not recall that when the House, at the Committee stage, abolished capital punishment the Home Secretary suspended hangings, which certainly could not be considered to be in the public interest?

Trams, Victoria Embankment

Sir Austin Hudson: asked the Minister of Transport what traffic alterations are contemplated on Victoria Embankment as a result of the abolition of the tramways; and whether he will consider using a portion of the space which will become available as a car park.

Mr. Barnes: Trams will probably continue to run on the Victoria Embankment until the autumn of 1952. No decision has yet been reached as to what alterations in the layout of the road will then be made, but the matter is under consideration by the Westminster City Council as highway authority.

Sir A. Hudson: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that an opportunity will not be lost of making a great improvement there when the trams disappear?

Mr. Barnes: I think the hon. Member can rest content that we shall keep in touch with the Westminster City Council on this matter.

Roads, Kent (Maintenance)

Mr. Percy Wells: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a considerable mileage of roads in Kent are in a corrugated and unsafe condition; that permitted expenditure is insufficient to enable the Kent County Council to undertake the necessary re-surfacing; and if he will look into the matter.

Mr. Barnes: I am aware that the funds available for road maintenance during recent years have not been sufficient to keep up the high standards we should all like to see; and this applies not only to Kent, but generally throughout the country. Every care is taken to ensure that the limited funds available to me for grants towards the cost of road maintenance are distributed among the various highway authorities in the most equitable manner.

Mr. Deedes: Is the Minister aware that roads in Kent had exceptionally heavy wear during the war and that that ought to be borne in mind when he is distributing what money there is available?

Mr. Barnes: We shall certainly keep that in mind when the Road Fund moneys are being allocated.

Jetty, Kyle of Lochalsh

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Minister of Transport when the new jetty at Kyle of Lochalsh will be completed.

Mr. Barnes: No acceptable tenders as regards either cost or time of completion were received for the construction of a new slipway according to the original plans. In order to secure the improvement of the ferry service this summer it was accordingly found necessary to prepare an amended scheme for an extension of the existing slipway to enable the ferry to be used at low tide. Every effort will be made to have the extension usable for Skye week. Further work will be done later to make the slipway more convenient.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that a Railway Executive official recently stated in a letter that this slipway would be completed this spring, and that if he is to

get it ready by this summer he will have to get a move on?

Sir T. Moore: That is too much to expect.

Bus Accidents, Glasgow

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport what steps, following the report of the inquiry on 20th October into Glasgow omnibus accidents, he proposes to take to reduce the risk of such accidents in the future.

Mr. Barnes: My consideration of the report of this inquiry has not revealed any feature common to these accidents or special to any one of them on which specific remedial steps could usefully be based.

Mr. Rankin: Am I then to understand that the committee made no recommendations at all which might have helped to avoid such accidents in future? Second, can my right hon. Friend say why the reports of this committee are secret and are not being published, as happens in the case of railway and air accidents?

Mr. Barnes: It is not customary to publish reports of this type of inquiry, but I can assure my hon. Friend I have read all these reports very carefully and there is no feature common to them. They concerned a series of different accidents and, therefore, there is nothing upon which I could base a policy.

Mr. Rankin: Do I understand, then, that the committee failed to make any recommendations which would afford guidance on how these accidents might be avoided?

Mr. Barnes: I can only repeat there was nothing common to the accidents upon which they could base any recommendations.

Public Service Vehicles (Accidents)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport how many persons were killed and how many injured, in 1950, while passengers on public service vehicles.

Mr. Barnes: I regret that the information is not available.

Mr. Rankin: Is there no way in which my right hon. Friend could obtain this very important information?

Mr. Barnes: I have already broken down many of the causes in these accident records, and there is no evidence that public service vehicles contribute to them to any large extent.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Cargo Handling (Mechanisation)

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Transport what progress is being made in the mechanisation of the handling of goods in British ports with a view to a quicker turn round of shipping and the economy of labour.

Mr. Barnes: The Report of the Working Party on Increased Mechanisation in U.K. Ports was published in May, 1950, and copies were sent to the national organisations directly concerned. Reports I have received from time to time from dock and harbour authorities show that progress is being made in the mechanisation of cargo handling in the ports. The introduction of mechanical aids is related to the question of manning scales; this is an industrial matter which is under continuous review by the local joint committees of the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the extreme importance of getting an ever quicker turn-round, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there are no restrictive practices and will he say whether he is satisfied with the rate of progress which is necessary?

Mr. Barnes: I should not like to say that I am satisfied with the rate of progress, because it is uneven in the different ports throughout the country. Anyone connected with shipping will realise how vital it is today that the turn-round should be as quick as possible. My purpose is to maintain continuous pressure, though one cannot always exercise a direct influence. The hon. Gentleman knows that the port and harbour authorities are largely autonomous.

Colonel Ropner: Is the Minister aware that the rate of loading and discharging in many of our ports compares unfavourably with the rates at many Continental ports?

Mr. Mellish: Does my right hon. Friend realise that charges of slow discharging and loading have been made before without any substantiation? Is he aware that many of the restrictive practices come from the employers' side as well as from the men's side; that there is a great fear of redundancy among the men, and that this must be broken down before the new machinery can be employed?

Mr. Barnes: In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), I always regret these general allegations that the ports of other countries are more efficient than those of this country, because my general experience of shipping does not substantiate that. I would not say for a moment that there are no examples that, perhaps, are more efficient, but, generally, I do not think that British ports suffer by comparison. On the point raised by my hon. Friend, it does not really matter where the restrictions operate; it is in the general interest to get rid of them.

Government Chartering (Co-ordination)

Captain Ryder: asked the Minister of Transport what arrangement exists for co-ordinating the demands for shipping by the various Government Departments; and what advice he is giving to avoid further dislocation in the world freight market.

Mr. Barnes: The policy of the importing Departments in chartering ships is to make the fullest use of the normal market facilities of the Baltic Exchange. I maintain close contact both with the importing Departments and with the Baltic Exchange and I am confident that every effort is being made by all concerned to avoid unnecessary competition and dislocation of the freight market.

Captain Ryder: In view of the enormous demands made by Government Departments on shipping space and the apparently unpredictable nature of His Majesty's Government in nautical matters, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he has got the situation in hand?

Mr. Barnes: I would point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is not only British demands that have affected the freight market. I suppose he knows


that there is something going on in Korea and in many other directions with regard to large bulk buying, not only here, but from abroad, which has had an effect on the freight markets.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to read the report of the Chamber of Shipping, which lays the blame frankly on the shoulders of the Government and says that such action on the part of private ship-owners and others would be regarded as inconceivable?

Mr. Barnes: I am certainly familiar with that report, and I emphasise the reply I gave to the supplementary question, that it is not entirely the demands from this coutnry, but a general demand, which have hardened freights throughout the world.

Mr. Maclay: Will the Minister state whether, at the time the Ministry of Fuel and Power made the heavy demands on tonnage in order to import coal, the Ministry of Transport had any knowledge of the import programmes sponsored by the Ministry of Supply's Timber Control and the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, certainly. We were generally aware of the programmes of that kind, but no one can help the impact of any large import programme on the freight market of the world. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the hardening of the market commenced before that time.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Although it may not be possible to co-ordinate world-wide demands, is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to do something to prevent the unseemly scramble between the Ministry of Food and the National Coal Board?

Mr. Barnes: I do not agree that there was an unseemly scramble, and while I am denying the implications of these questions, I would, on the other hand, like publicly to acknowledge the assistance I have received from the British shipping industry. It has helped considerably to keep the rising freight markets of the world under some form of control.

Mr. Lloyd: In return, might not the Government Departments do something to help the shipping industry?

Mr. Barnes: We have done that repeatedly. I resist the implication that we have been inconsiderate towards the shipping industry of this country.

Ships (Sale)

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that a number of shipping companies are desirous of selling old ships in order to replace them by modern tonnage, he will lift the ban on the sale of ships to foreign nationals.

Mr. Barnes: Control over the sales of ships to overseas buyers must continue in the interests of national defence and security. But, within wide limits, I permit the maximum freedom of sale to enable shipping companies to build up funds for replacement.

Colonel Ropner: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that it is in the national interest to compel ship-owners to keep old ships while allowing foreigners to buy modern efficient tonnage in this country?

Mr. Barnes: They are not compelled to keep old ships. At certain ages of ships there is a free sale and in the next age category owners are permitted to sell provided funds are blocked for replacement.

Colonel Ropner: Why does the Minister keep this control on at all?

Mr. Barnes: As I pointed out, in the interest of national defence and security.

Radio Officers

Mr. Edward Heath: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that the supply of qualified radio officers for the British merchant service is increased in order to meet the present shortage.

Mr. Barnes: This is primarily a matter for the shipping industry, but I understand that while there is a tendency for radio officers, after some years at sea, to settle down in employment ashore, there has been no shortage of new entrants. The recent National Maritime Board agreements are designed to encourage officers in all departments in the Merchant Navy to make the sea their permanent career.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

East Anglia Consultative Committee

Mr. McAdden: asked the Minister of Transport what process of selection was used in appointing members to the East Anglia Transport Consultative Committee.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Transport what was the basis on which members were selected for appointment to the East Anglia Transport Consultative Committee.

Mr. Barnes: As required by the Transport Act, I consulted bodies representing agriculture, commerce, industry, shipping, labour and local authorities. From the names submitted by these bodies and by the British Transport Commission I chose the persons who appeared to be most suitable with due regard to keeping a proper balance within the Committee as a whole and a reasonable distribution of membership throughout the area of the Committee. I have also appointed two additional members.

Mr. McAdden: Is the Minister aware that this method of selection has entirely debarred from representation any of those who are day-to-day passengers on the railway? Is he further aware that 20,000 people who use the Southend—Fenchurch Street line are debarred from any representation? Will he appoint one of them as a member?

Mr. Barnes: As there is a season ticket holder in every town and city and it would be impossible to secure the representations of all of them. As a matter of fact, there is a season ticket holder, if not from this area from another, on this Committee, but the authority in which the hon. Member is interested has a direct representative put on by the municipal authority.

Mr. McAdden: Not at all.

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will add to the Transport Users Consultative Committee for East Anglia a representative from the travelling public using the Fenchurch Street—Shoeburyness line.

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. It would not be practicable to add to these committees representatives of particular local interests of this kind.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the intense dissatisfaction of thousands of travellers in South Essex with the unreliable services and dirty conditions under which they have to travel? Bearing in mind that the railways belong to the public, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer and give representation to the unfortunate people who use this line, so that their grievances and remedies may be considered?

Mr. Barnes: I have already pointed out that the Southend local authority has a representative, and I see no reason why bodies of citizens should not make their views felt through, for instance, the representation of the Southend municipal authority.

Sir H. Williams: Do I understand from the Minister's answer that people on the Committee never travel?

Mr. Driberg: Are we to take it from this Question and answer that this Committee, despite its somewhat misleading name, does, in fact, cover Essex as well as East Anglia?

Mr. Barnes: Certainly.

Mr. Driberg: It is not part of it.

Mr. Nicholson: Was the Minister choosing his words carefully when he described the travelling public using an important London terminus as "particular local interests"? I would like an answer to that.

Port, Faslane

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Minister of Transport what was the cost of building Faslane docks and harbour; on what date they were sold; to what firm and at what price; and to what extent the contract provided for the possibility of the return of this undertaking in the event of national emergency.

Mr. Barnes: The military port of Faslane was built and equipped by the War Office during the war at a cost of approximately £3 million. The port has not been


sold but has been leased to Metal Industries, Ltd., for a period of 20 years from 15th August, 1946, at a yearly rental of £12,500. The lease provides that the lessees will keep in repair the main structures of the port, and it has been agreed with Metal Industries, Ltd., that in the event of national emergency the Government would have the right of immediate re-occupation.

Rail and Steamer Services (Cuts)

Sir Walter Smiles: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the inequitable distribution of the emergency cuts in rail and steamer traffic due to the coal shortage; and if he will make a statement on the directions he will issue to the British Transport Commission to ensure that cuts in services are equally distributed on all the routes affected.

Mr. Barnes: The Railway Executive have sought to cause the least inconvenience to travellers by cutting their most lightly-loaded services. Cuts have been made where the, most effective savings in coal could be obtained without undue interference with essential services. In the circumstances, the question of direction does not arise.

Sir W. Smiles: Is the Minister aware that one cross-Channel steamer service, that between Belfast and Heysham, has been cut since the coal shortage, whereas the other cross-Channel services belonging to British Railways have not been cut? Has the right hon. Gentleman now abandoned the policy of fair shares for all?

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. I do not think that that issue arises. Some of the ships are oil burning. In the case to which the hon. Member referred the cut represented a direct saving in coal consumption. It was not a very heavily loaded service, and it was temporarily suspended.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that great inconvenience is caused on some of the rural branch lines on which the Sunday services have been entirely suspended—for example, on the Southminster branch—and where there is no alternative transport, no Sunday buses?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, I am quite aware of that. Inconvenience has been caused by these cuts, but they are unavoidable.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is it not a fact that, as in the case of the shipping industry, railways have been much embarrassed by the suddenness of the Government's demands about coal; and, as all these plans had to be put into effect so quickly by the railways, ought not the matter to be reconsidered in order to even out these cuts?

Mr. Barnes: As I said some time ago, the railways have had to bear more or less the same proportion of cuts as industry in general, but on passenger services the effects are experienced more directly.

Mr. Thomas Reid: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great inconvenience caused by practically abolishing the railway service between Swindon and Trowbridge?

Professor Savory: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that cutting down the Heysham service from six days in the week to three seriously affects the export of raw materials to Northern Ireland for the shipbuilding yards and also for the aircraft factory, which produce what is so necessary at present for our defence?

Mr. Barnes: No; I do not think that the cargo services will be inconvenienced to the same extent as the passenger services.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. Although, in view of your recent Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I should obviously not be in order in giving notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment, since it arises out of a Question on the Paper in the name of another hon. Member, nevertheless may I take it that I should be in order in advising my right hon. Friend that I have, in fact, been balloting daily for weeks on this subject, and that if I am not lucky in the ballot soon I shall ask you for some time on the Easter Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is in order in saying that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment, but it does not stop Questions as far as I am concerned. He makes his protest in that way, and that is why I allow it.

Commission (Annual Report)

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to publish the Annual Report of the British Transport Commission for 1950.

Mr. Barnes: The Commission hope that the Report will be available in the early part of July.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Can we not break this bad habit of getting the Report only when it is months out of date? Should we not have it available now?

Mr. Barnes: I think that this represents a considerable improvement on our experience of last year. They are very formidable accounts.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the scandalous delay which took place last year in the publication of this Report? Does he appreciate that the affairs of the Transport Commission are now deteriorating so fast and that the delay in the publication of the Report is so long that the House of Commons frequently finds itself debating something which is months and months out of date? Will the right hon. Gentleman send a sharp note to Lord Hurcomb?

Mr. Barnes: I do not think that any problem is solved by exaggerated statements of that kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Fares and Freights

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement as to his present intentions with regard to the levels of railway rates and fares.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Transport what increases he proposes to authorise in railway passenger fares and freight charges; and whether he will give an assurance that none of these increases shall come into effect until this House has had an opportunity to consider them.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in considering

applications by the railways for permission to raise freights, he will bear in mind the hardship this causes to remote areas in the Highlands and Islands; and whether he will take steps to introduce some form of rebate on long hauls.

Mr. Barnes: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that when the Government intervened in the recent wage negotiations he must have advised his colleagues at that time about the effect that that settlement would probably have on freights and fares? In those circumstances, what is the cause of the delay?

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member ought to appreciate that I should require a submission from the Transport Commission. That submission has now been received and will be given full and adequate consideration.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Do we understand from that reply that the Transport Commission have now made their representations and recommendations to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Barnes: Yes.

Mr. Thorneycroft: In that case, how soon can we expect the right hon. Gentleman to give them consideration?

Mr. Barnes: I suggest that, for the moment, the hon. Member waits and sees.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Why is the right hon. Gentleman not able to answer the second part of Question No. 23? In view both of the importance to the economy of this country and the fact that the situation has been aggravated by the direct intervention of the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend, cannot he give an assurance that no steps will be taken until the House is consulted?

Mr. Barnes: It is not for me to determine the business of the House. When issues are being determined the hon. Member knows the course of procedure to follow if the matter is to be debated here.

Mr. Monslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that railway workers are no longer going to be considered the Cinderellas of industry, whatever decisions are taken?

Electrification Scheme, Finsbury Park—Alexandra Palace

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Transport why he refused to approve the capital expenditure necessary to complete the electrification of the line from Finsbury Park to Alexandra Palace; and what was the amount of money involved.

Mr. Barnes: I have not withheld approval for this scheme, the estimated cost of which is £4 million. While the Commission's total capital investment is limited, within that limitation the Commission apportion capital investment for their Executives in accordance with their views as to priorities.

Mr. Gammans: As it would not cost very much, relatively, to finish off this job, which has been in progress since before the war, would the right hon. Gentleman consider giving the necessary authorisation to do it?

Mr. Barnes: I have not withheld approval, but the Commission must have the responsibility for allocating what capital they have for investment.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Has the right hon. Gentleman reminded the Commission that there is not a single yard of overland electric railway in Scotland?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Scottish Aviation, Limited (Contracts)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Supply what orders he has given or contemplates giving to Scottish Aviation, Limited, in connection with the programme of re-armament.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): As I informed the hon. and gallant Member in reply to a similar Question on 23rd October last, it would be contrary to established practice to give information about re-armament orders placed with particular firms. I can assure him, however, that I am aware of this firm's capacity. Opportunities to use it more fully will not be overlooked by my Department and some contracts have, in fact, recently been placed with them.

Sir T. Moore: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to pursue the vendetta against Scotland and that he will allow this private enterprise company an opportunity of playing its part in the future of civil aviation?

Motor Industry (Standardisation)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Supply what information he has about the progress which has been made in the standardisation of parts in the motor industry.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: My Ministry has been active in impressing on the engineering industry the need for greater standardisation and has met with a ready response. The application of the principles of standardisation is a matter for each industry. Although I have no detailed information of the progress which the motor industry has made, I am satisfied that it is giving close and energetic attention to the problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA

Decorations

Sir George Harvie-Watt: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet reached any decision about the issue of a medal and ribbon for the campaign in Korea.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. It is not customary to come to a decision on a matter of this kind at so early a stage in a campaign, but it will be considered in due course.

Sir G. Harvie-Watt: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that at this stage of the campaign it would be a great encouragement to the British soldiers fighting in Korea if an award of this kind were now made?

The Prime Minister: Awards for gallantry, and so on, are made, but it has never been the custom to decide on a general campaign medal at so early a stage. I think it is better left a little sort can be weighed with other campaigns.

Sir G. Harvie-Watt: It has been going on for nearly nine months.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Is the Prime Minister aware, when he says that awards for gallantry are made, that only two awards have been made to other ranks?

Mr. Speaker: We are dealing with medals and not awards.

Forces' Pay and Allowances

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will recommend to the United Nations organisation that all troops fighting for the United Nations should get equal pay and disability allowances and equal compensation for widows.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will recommend to the United Nations organisation that all troops, sailors and airmen fighting under the United Nations Command should get equal pay.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): No, Sir. Forces sent to Korea by member States in response to the Security Council recommendation of 27th June, 1950, are paid and maintained by their Governments on the scales appropriate to the Armed Forces of each country involved. Any attempt to produce uniformity in these matters throughout all the national contingents serving in this operation would, even if it were desirable, involve very great administrative and financial difficulties.

Brigadier Clarke: Does the Minister not appreciate that our Service personnel are fighting not for Great Britain but for the United Nations, and will he forget the administrative difficulties and try to give these men equal pay, equal disability allowances, and equal pensions?

Mr. Younger: I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with his Service experience, would realise the very serious difficulties that would be involved if certain of our Forces serving abroad were operating under one system and certain under another.

Brigadier Medlicott: Ought not this matter to be looked at again, from the point of view of the men themselves? After all, we have overcome the enormous difficulties involved in building up an integrated international force, and surely we can now overcome what ought to be the lesser difficulty of dealing fairly with the men in this matter.

Mr. Younger: I think it will be very difficult to do anything of this kind unless we had reached a point of having Forces directly employed and paid from a common budget under the United Nations.

United Nations' Objectives

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the defeat inflicted in the last few days on the enemy in Korea, and the consequent advance of the United Nations Forces, he can now make a statement on the strategic policy of the United Nations with regard to the limits of their advance.

Mr. Younger: The objectives of the United Nations in Korea were set out in the Resolutions of the Security Council of 27th June and of the General Assembly of 7th October, and still stand. As regards the limits of the advance of United Nations Forces, we are in continuous consultation with the United States Government who are responsible under the Resolution of the Security Council of 7th July for providing the Unified Command.
As my hon. Friend said on 26th February, we have reached a very large measure of agreement with the United States Government on this issue. Since fighting is at present in progress it would clearly not be in the interest of United Nations Forces to make any public statement about future operations.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not entirely a matter between ourselves and the United States, but is one for the United Nations and the world to know? Does he not agree that this policy of dither and uncertainty will result in our getting the worst of both worlds?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman must not assume that there is dither and uncertainty merely because we prefer not to make a statement which would be of definite assistance to the commanders in the field opposed to our Forces.

Mr. Paton: Could my hon. Friend elucidate the phrase a "measure of agreement"? It seems to me a simple question of whether or not we should advance beyond a certain point. How can there be a "measure of agreement" on such a question?

Mr. Eden: I was going to put the same point. Nobody wishes to press for tactical information, but what we should like, and be content with, is an assurance on this point—are the Governments concerned agreed?

Mr. Younger: Yes, Sir, and the right hon. Gentleman will remember that there was an undertaking, which I think was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, given to us on behalf of the United States Government that there would be very full consultation before there was any question of a large-scale strategic crossing of the Parallel.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that anxiety is growing in the country that the war is proceeding in Korea without sufficient emphasis by His Majesty's Government on its, political and moral content and purpose? Is it not now time that His Majesty's Government reintroduced a new resolution in the United Nations' Assembly defining our war aims?

Mr. Younger: It is, of course, quite possible for any member State to introduce a new resolution if they thought the aims of the United Nations, as set out in the previous Resolution, required alteration, but His Majesty's Government do not feel that they require any alteration.

British Red Cross

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what duties the British Red Cross are performing in Korea.

Mr. Younger: The British Red Cross Society's welfare team was due to leave Japan on 1st March for Korea where it will assist under the Unified Command in welfare and public health work among the local inhabitants. In addition, British Red Cross and St. John naval V.A.D.s are employed on a hospital ship in Korean waters and the Society have made grants to the International Red Cross Committee for relief work in Korea. British Red Cross and St. John personnel and stores are being used to help Service casualties in hospitals in Japan.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would my hon. Friend tell us something about the ban which General MacArthur placed on the Red Cross? Why was this ban placed

on the Red Cross? Is it not an example of extraordinary inhumanity, seeing that the work of the Red Cross has been very effective?

Mr. Younger: I am glad to say that the difficulties which arose about the emblems which should be worn by Red Cross personnel have been solved.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PERSONNEL, GERMANY (ACCOMMODATION)

Mr. John Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now withdraw the order which prohibits British personnel from living with German families.

Mr. Younger: There has been no order prohibiting British members of the Control Commission from living in German households since the rule against fraternisation was dropped in 1946.

Mr. Hynd: Is it not the case that members of the Control Commission have to choose between private billets—that is, private housing accommodation in flats—or living in barracks? Is this not preventing the Commission staff from making the necessary contacts with the German people?

Mr. Younger: I think there are very real difficulties about any considerable number of members of the Control Commission finding accommodation with German families, most of whom are already overcrowded.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the inadequate publicity given to the contribution of this country to the combined efforts of the Western Democracies in all parts of the world, he will institute an inquiry to consider methods by which British Information Services in the United States of America can be made more effective.

Mr. Younger: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 12th February to the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey). I do not think, in


view of the situation as there described, that an inquiry is needed or would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that American papers have shown an unfortunate lack of knowledge, although not of understanding, of the extent of our efforts, not only at present, but throughout recent years?

Mr. Younger: I think that the British Information Services are very well aware of what a big task they have in this matter. I believe that a great deal of information is made available by them to American agencies. It is not always used, for reasons which are understandable.

Mr. Peter Smithers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in one of the Press centres of the Middle West, where I was recently, they had never heard of the Chicago Office of this organisation at all? Would he look into the Service's Middle Western organisation?

Mr. Younger: I should like particulars of the instance the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. Gammans: So far as the Malayan campaign is concerned, have the Government considered the suggestion made on this point in the House the other night, that Malayan rubber planters, tin miners, Malays and Chinese should be invited by the British Information Services to go to America and to give talks and broadcasts there?

Mr. Younger: I should want notice before answering that specific question.

Mr. Peart: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the last Parliament these Services were often attacked by hon. Members of the Opposition?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR GOODS (EXPORTS)

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress made in the negotiations with Switzerland and Sweden to join the Atlantic Pact Nations in banning the export of war goods to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and other countries under Russian influence.

Mr. Younger: His Majesty's Government are continuously concerned to ensure, as far as possible, that their export control policy should not be frustrated by the actions of other governments. Talks with the Swedish and Swiss Governments are continuing, and have led to a useful examination of the problems on both sides.

Miss Ward: Am I right in assuming from that answer that the hon. Gentleman is seeking information and assistance from both the Swiss and the Swedish authorities to circumvent any wrongful action through people in this country sending exports to countries behind the Iron Curtain?

Mr. Younger: As I said, we want to ensure, as far as possible, that our own controls are not frustrated either in the way referred to, or in any other way, by what goes on in those other countries.

MOTION: RAW MATERIALS (DIVISION RESULT)

Mr. Eden: Before I put my more controversial question, may I say how glad we all are to see the Foreign Secretary back with us?
May I ask the Leader of the House what are the Government's intentions in respect of the Motion carried by the House on Friday last?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I join with the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition in the welcome he has given to the Foreign Secretary, whom we are all glad to see back.
With regard to the proceedings on Friday, naturally, the Government will take into account the expression of the opinion of the House on a Private Members' day, but I am bound to say that I think it is a new doctrine that on a Private Members' day the Government can be instructed to do certain things, or that a Motion on a Private Members' initiative should be regarded as a Vote of Censure. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) should try to elevate a Private Members' day into that degree of importance. We take note of what the House resolved, but we cannot accept a decision on a Private Members'


day either as an instruction to the Government or as a Vote of Censure; and that must be the sense of proportion in which the matter is taken.

Mr. Eden: Had the right hon. Gentleman or somebody else on the Treasury Bench been capable of making an explanation on Friday there would not have been any of this misunderstanding at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. My first question on that day was to ask what action the Government proposed to take. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman himself will have noticed that the Motion itself expressed regret for the past failure of the Government to take certain action. Nothing could be more natural in a helpful Opposition than to wish to know what steps the Government propose to take in the future so that the House will not have to complain of them again.

Mr. Morrison: I noticed that when the right hon. Gentleman referred to the decision of the House and its implied binding effects he could not help smiling, and I join with him in that facial expression. On the other point, his observations are really irrelevant. This was an expression of opinion of the House on a Private Member's Motion, and we take note of it. I only want to say that if the Opposition want to use Fridays for Motions of censure I think they are wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If they want to go in for Votes of Censure they had better go into them in a respectable and proper manner.

Mr. Eden: Let me put this to the right hon. Gentleman. It is true that a Private Member's Motion can vary in its emphasis and significance. The emphasis of this one was added to by the fact that the President of the Board of Trade, a member of the Cabinet, was the Government's spokesman, who asked the House to resist the Motion. There is nothing in the constitution which places a Private Member's Motion on a different footing from any other Motion of Censure.

Mr. Morrison: But suppose that the President of the Board of Trade had not answered: the House would have had a grievance that the appropriate Minister had not made his comment. I am surprised that an experienced Parliamentarian like the right hon. Gentleman should dare even to entertain the idea

that a Private Member's Motion should be elevated either into an instruction to the Government or into a Vote of Censure. If the Opposition want to go in for Votes of Censure, let them go in for them, and not shield themselves behind Private Members' Motions.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), that the main difficulty—the only difficulty—on Friday arose from the fact that the question he asked was not immediately answered by the Government, could you tell us, Mr. Speaker, what will be the procedure in future? Is it really in order, at 4 o'clock on a Friday afternoon, when the House should proceed to the Adjournment, for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington to initiate a debate on the consequences of a vote which has been taken by the House? Could you tell us on what Motion the discussion which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington initiated on Friday took place?

Mr. Speaker: There was no Motion, but it is always customary, when an unexpected Division goes against the Government side, for the Leader of the Opposition, or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to ask what the Government are going to do about it. I have known that in my experience. Once I happened to be on the side which beat the Government at the time I supported it, when, I am afraid, the then Speaker put his foot into it at that time and gave the wrong answer. Actually, the questions on Friday did not interfere with the Adjournment, because we had to go through quite a long list of business in any case. It is really quite customary on such an occasion to ask the Government what they are going to do. That may not be on a Motion, but it is part of the Business of the House.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order. Are we to understand that if, unhappily, any such occasion should arise in the future, Members of the House are entitled to engage in some form of debate following such a vote?

Mr. Speaker: There is no form of debate about it. The Leader of the Opposition or the Acting Leader of the


Opposition asks the Government what they are going to do about it The Government are entitled to say that they are doing nothing about it. It is quite in order.

Mr. Foot: Are we therefore to understand, Sir, that the Acting Leader of the Opposition, in such a case, has rights which are not available to the other Members of the House?

Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister has rights which are not available, I imagine, to every back bench Member of the House, and out of courtesy we always have given the Leader of the Opposition a certain amount of liberty. We do not want this to become the kind of place where everybody is equal and everybody can talk on everything. We must have rules; we must have customs; otherwise, we become a Tower of Babel and not a Parliament.

Mr. Henry Strauss: In order that we may follow the doctrine of the Leader of the House, would he tell us whether it is his opinion that a Motion carried by the House represents the opinion of the House less accurately if the Whips are not on?

Mr. H. Morrison: Obviously, it makes a difference whether the Whips are on or off. I assume that they were off on the Opposition side. There have been occasions when, on a Friday afternoon, the Opposition have been defeated on a Motion. Are my hon. Friends thereby entitled to demand that the whole Opposition Front Bench should resign and give place to hon. Members behind them?

Mr. Paget: Does my right hon. Friend recollect occasions before the war when Motions were carried against the Government in favour of equal pay for equal work and of the abolition of the death

penalty? What action did the then Government take?

Mr. Morrison: I recollect one during the war, when the House, within 48 hours, reversed its decision—which, as a member of the then Government, I thoroughly welcomed. I do not blame the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition for having his bit of fun, but he knows it is a bit of fun, I know it is a bit of fun, and we all know it is a bit of fun.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is the Leader of the House not aware that on Friday the President of the Board of Trade specifically asked the House to reject the Motion, and, therefore, assumed responsibility for opposition to it, which rather changed the position? Would the right hon. Gentleman also inquire who moved the reduction of a Vote on cordite in 1895, which destroyed a Government?

Mr. Morrison: I was not here in 1895; I was only seven years old. The President of the Board of Trade was entitled—indeed, I think it was his responsibility—to give advice to the House on Friday.

Sir H. Williams: It was not advice.

Mr. Morrison: Oh, yes, it was. Nothing else could be done. He gave advice and, as it happened, by a majority of four that advice was not taken; but the world does not come to an end because of that.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: I think we had better get on now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES (TRAINING) BILL

As amended, considered.

Clause 2.—(PROCEDURE FOR CALLING UP UNDER S. 1.)

3.42 p.m.

Amendment proposed: In page 4, leave out lines 38 to 45, and insert:
Provided that it shall be a defence for him to prove that, in accordance with the arrangements in that behalf made by the Service Authority and notified to him before the service of the notice under this section, he had duly applied for exemption from liability to be called up under the foregoing section, either generally or as respects any period including the day specified in the notice under this section served on him, and that he had not before that day been notified that the application had been refused.—[Mr. M. Stewart.]

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to say "thank you" to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for carrying out the undertaking he gave in Committee.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: During the Committee proceedings the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) proposed an Amendment which he agreed to withdraw after receiving an assurance from the Government that the point of his Amendment would be met. Many of us were unable to hear the actual terms of the Amendment proposed by the Government on which the right hon. Gentleman agreed to withdraw his Amendment, but we accepted an assurance that the wording of the Government Amendment would fully meet the point of the original Amendment, and that it was only a matter of technical form. The Secretary of State for Air said in Committee:
This suggested alternative form of words completely covers the desires of the framers of the Amendment, and therefore I ask them to accept it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 2355.]
It was on that assurance that the Committee agreed to allow the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment.
I wish to draw attention to the fact that in the original Amendment there was a reference to conscientious objectors, while in the form of words now proposed by the Government there is no such reference. In my view this makes a con-

siderable change. I shall not go over the ground in detail, but this Bill makes no statutory provisions for conscientious objectors. All that has happened is that the Minister has given us a promise that their problems will be dealt with administratively. I urge that consideration should still be given to the original Amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley, and that there should be included in the final form of words a reference to conscientious objectors so that they may have this statutory provision.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In Committee the Secretary of State for Air undertook to repeat this proviso in Clause 3. I cannot discuss it now because on the Report stage we do not have the opportunity of discussing a Clause on the Question that it stand part of the Bill, and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman can say something about it now. The point is that a different set of liabilities and punishments applies to Clause 3, and if a man is claiming exemption from call-up under Clause 2 he obviously will not want to present himself for medical examination under Clause 3. There must therefore be this same proviso attaching to Clause 3 as to Clause 2. The Under-Secretary of State for War seems to have difficulty in getting the point, but the Secretary of State for Air was present when this was debated in Committee and he understands the point. I think he will agree that in another place there must be introduced just such a proviso in order to exempt men from the penalties attaching to them under Clause 3.

3.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): First let me deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway). He is not quite right on procedure. In Committee the Amendment to which he referred was not withdrawn but incorporated in the Bill. What we are now doing is taking it out again and putting in our proposed Amendment. That procedure was adopted for the express purpose of giving the House an opportunity to consider this Amendment on its merits. I assure the House that the Amendment we are now considering secures exactly what my hon. Friend has in mind, and what the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), who


moved the original Amendment, had in mind. The provisions in this Amendment, where it refers to the arrangements notified to a person by the Service Authority, and the further phrase,
either generally or as respects any period
mean that any claim for exemption, made either on conscientious grounds or on grounds of domestic or business hardship, will be given an opportunity for notification, which obviously is made clear to the person concerned at the same time as a warning notice is sent to him.
It is true, as my hon. Friend says, that we have not made statutory provision for conscientious objection; and, indeed, in view of the various types of person mentioned in the Bill, there would be very serious difficulty about doing so. However, as the House knows, it is well understood that the arrangements are there for persons who register conscientious objection if they are called up under this Bill. In view of the fact that that is generally known and accepted, and that that was acceptable both on Second Reading and in Committee, I hope the House will be prepared to accept this Amendment as it stands.
The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) will remember that the undertaking given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Air was to look into the point the noble Lord raised in Committee to see whether such a proviso could be introduced, without expressly committing himself to introducing such a proviso. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend has addressed a communication to the noble Lord, which he may not yet have received, dealing with this matter in some detail.
The point really at issue is this: A man may make application on conscientious grounds, and that is largely what we are concerned with, to be exempted from call-up. That application is then in the process of being dealt with in the proper manner. While it is still under discussion, he receives a notice requiring him to submit himself for medical examination. If he is able to say "Well, a decision has not been made on my application yet, therefore, I will not come for medical examination," we should be faced with this difficulty. If he did not come, and the decision on conscientious

grounds was given against him, time would have passed by, and we should then, perhaps too late for convenience, have to call him up for medical examination.
It is not unreasonable to say, "What we are asking you to do now is to have a medical examination. If your application on conscientious grounds is approved, then you will not be called up, and your medical examination will in fact have been unnecessary. But it is not unreasonable, while the matter is still under consideration, to ask you to undergo medical examination. It commits you to nothing and in no way prejudices the hearing of your appeal on conscientious grounds." I think that it would be unreasonable for any one to object to going for medical examination in those circumstances. If, before it was necessary to call him for medical examination, his claim had already been decided in his favour, then, of course, he would not be called for medical examination. I hope that the noble Lord and the House will accept that no injustice or hardship is imposed on any one by the absence of such a proviso from the Bill.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: There is one point about the hon. Gentleman's argument to which I should like to refer. He says that it is generally understood that conscientious objectors will be provided for because of the arrangement understood outside this Bill. There is nothing about conscientious objectors in this Bill at all, and the phrase" either generally or as respects any period" would not cover in this Bill conscientious objectors. Conscientious objectors are specifically provided for under the National Service Acts. Had there been a Clause or phrase in the general Clauses at the end of the Bill, that this Bill is to be read with the relevant National Service Acts, I agree that they would be covered, but, as it stands, I very much doubt if they are covered. The last Clause should be so amended as to include the National Service Acts and this Bill should be read together with those Acts.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: May I put a question?

Mr. Speaker: Only by leave of the House.

Mr. Brockway: I want to ask whether, in the hon. Gentleman's view, the phrase:
In accordance with the arrangements in that behalf made by the Service Authority,
would apply to conscientious objectors, considering that there is no statutory provision under this Bill for them at all.

Mr. Stewart: If I may reply, with the leave of the House, the answer is "Yes." With regard to the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think that I made it clear that I was accepting the position that there is no provision by statute for conscientious objectors. He seemed to think that I suggested that there was; there is not. In view of the persons mentioned in the tables of the Bill, it is, on the whole, desirable that there should not be.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS TO BE CALLED UP FOR SHORT-TERM TRAINING.)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, at the end to insert:
Provided also that no person shall be convicted of an offence under this subsection unless the court is satisfied that the notice served on him under subsection (1) of this section was served at such time before the date specified therein as to allow the person upon whom it was served reasonable time to comply with the said notice having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
This Amendment follows, as the House will recall, a discussion in Committee on the point whether it was not possible under the Clause, as it now stands, for a man to be subjected to the criminal penalties under the Clause even if he had not in fact had enough time to comply with the notice. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will recall that, after some discussion, an Amendment was withdrawn with a view to finding some possible solution. The present Amendment does not go so far as the one moved in Committee. It imposes no limit of time during which the notice has to be given, and thereby meets the point which the Parliamentary Secretary made on Committee stage, but it provides that if, in the opinion of the court, the notice given was not adequate, no conviction shall take place. It is designed to prevent the possibility of an injuctice in this way being done to the man.
I understand that the Government took the view that this Amendment would be more appropriately placed on line 29 and not line 23 as it appears on the Paper. Having considered that, I am inclined respectfully to agree with them, and I hope that no dispute will arise on that point. Perhaps I may be permitted to move the Amendment in relation to line 29 in view of the Government's suggestion that that is the right place for it, with which I agree.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I hope that the Government will look kindly at this Amendment because it seems to me to be good sense. The existing proviso says that if it is impossible for a man to comply, it shall not be an offence if he fails to comply. That seems to be giving nothing away at all. The Amendment does give the reservist something which is worth having which is not included in the Bill as it stands. Without such a provison as this, it seems to me that a court might feel bound to convict in circumstances where it was possible to comply but to comply would cause serious hardship to the reservist because of the shortness of the notice. I hope, therefore, that the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Stewart: We thought that the original proviso in the Bill adequately safeguarded against any injustice being done. We must, however, have regard to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine), and we shall be very glad to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I rise to say "Thank you" to right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite for accepting the suggestion put forward from these benches, which makes another improvement in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4.—(RELEASE FROM SERVICE UNDER S. 1.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 16, leave out subsection (5), and insert:
(5) The power to make regulations conferred by subsection (3) of this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. A. Henderson.]

Clause 12.—(EXTENSION OF PART I TO YEARS 1952–1954.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move in page 13, line 30, to leave out Clause 12.
This Amendment is similar to one which was discussed in the early hours of last Friday, very briefly in view of the late hour. It was followed by a Division in which there was a tie, and now we have the opportunity of giving the matter further consideration.
Under this Clause, it is possible to extend the period of the Bill by Order in Council to 1952, 1953 and 1954. If it is extended in that way, it means that it will not be possible to amend this Bill, which will then be an Act, but merely to renew the Act in its existing form. I can well see the arguments which are attractive to the Government in favour of extending it by Order in Council if there is to be any extension. In the light of their experience on the Committee Stage, this Government, in the unlikely event that they are still in office in 1952–54, would be subject to a very considerable temptation to extend it by Order in Council, for if they did that it certainly would not be possible to discuss, for instance, the exclusion of Northern Ireland. Nor would it be possible, if the extension were proposed by an Order in Council, to move an Amendment that a person should not be prosecuted more than once for failure to comply with the call-up notice.
4.0 p.m.
I should have thought it doubtful if it would be possible to discuss either of these matters. Certainly, if it is extended by Order in Council there will be no opportunity for the Government supporters to divide against the Government on matters of that character. Therefore, I submit that if any extension is necessary, the temptation to the Government to make the extension by Order in Council Is a strong one. Our view is that the Government should not be exposed to such a temptation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) put forward on the Committee stage our criticisms against this Clause. As he said, the system proposed in the Bill has many shortcomings. It does not fully meet the training of those of the Territorial Army, nor the Regular Army and the Royal Air

Force at home. It would be astonishing in the light of the experience we have had this year, if this rather hurried Measure should not require alteration. I feel sure that it will. Therefore, we feel that this provision for extension by Order in Council should be deleted. It is only a temptation on the part of the Government not to alter the Bill, even if an alteration is proved by experience to be desirable.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will further consider whether the retention of this Clause is really necessary. I hope he will also bear in mind, in giving it further consideration, that no fewer than 13 of the Government's supporters who voted in favour of the proposal that no one should be prosecuted twice for failing to respond to the call-up, went into the Lobby for the Government on this particular Clause, giving the Government power therefore to extend the Bill by Order in Council and to extend the possibility of a person being prosecuted more than once if called up more than once in succeeding years. That shows illogicality in thought, a certain amount of charm, and an irresponsibility on the part of certain Members opposite. I hope that, apart from these few words which may perhaps have poured a little oil upon the fire, the right hon. Gentleman will give this Amendment serious consideration, and I hope that once again the Government will accept our proposal, as they have so many of our proposals in the course of these discussions.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to second the Amendment.
The fact that the Committee found it desirable to divide on this issue makes it a very good reason why this Amendment should be considered. The Under-Secretary has himself said, to use his words:
I think therefore that it is common ground between us that there ought to be provision for the possibility of doing something like this not only this year, but in the next two or three years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 2516.]
That is the whole point, that it will have to be "something like this," which means, in point of fact, nothing like it. It will be necessary to introduce a new Bill and it will not fall under the machinery of the Order in Council procedure as a practical proposition.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned during the Committee stage that it very largely


affects the Territorial Army over the next three years when the National Service men will be pouring in. It is not only them. In fact, they are the smaller proportion to be affected—80,000 as against 115,000 men coming into the Regular Army. By this time next year there will be such a change in the situation in regard to troops in Britain in proportion to troops in Western Europe that something entirely new will have to be devised.
I am very sorry to see that of these 115,000 Class Z men to be called up none are to go where they are most needed—to the tail of the Army in Germany. I dare say that it was impracticable to do this, but by next year it may be that we shall have to introduce some legislation to make that practicable. I think that certain Members below the Gangway should support us over this. Surely they would like to see these things re-discussed in connection with a small Bill rather than to have an Order in Council. I appeal to those below the Gangway to support us in that contention. Although they will probably support the Amendment from different reasons, their support will never-the less be welcome.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I have listened with interest to the speeches in support of the Amendment. I rather thought there was a slight difference in the tone of the appeal that was equally made in both of them. The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) in appealing to us to support him conceded that our reasons might be rather different. His appeal seemed to be a genuine and sincere appeal which it is tempting to admit. The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), however, seemed to go out of his way to make it as difficult as possible to induce any of us to support him, because he said that if we did we should be inconsistent and illogical.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot have heard directly what I said. I was indicating to him the opportunity he would have of becoming entirely logical and perhaps ceasing to be quite irresponsible.

Mr. Silverman: I heard that said, and I think I understood it the first time. It is the danger of "spreading the net in sight of the bird."
Nevertheless, I ask my right hon. Friend again to look very carefully at the principle of the Amendment. I say that not to afford any aid and encouragement to the Opposition, but because it seems to me that there is a genuine principle here involved. This is a Measure which the House is passing without opposition, although reluctantly, and I am sure that the Government are as reluctant as the rest of us to have it. Only necessity will have persuaded the Government to bring the Bill before the House at all. The Bill is expressly limited in effect to one year, but both sides of the House appear to have conceded that it may be necessary to extend it.
The only question is whether it shall be extended in such a way as to give the House and the Government an opportunity to avail ourselves of the experience we shall have gathered during the 12 months, or whether it shall be extended in a form which denies both to the Government and to the House an opportunity of making any use of that experience at all. There is no question but that Parliament will have an opportunity of approving or rejecting the extension to subsequent years, because if it is done as the Government wish it to be done, that is to say by Order in Council, the House can, if it chooses, reject it by a negative Resolution. Therefore, I am not arguing for the moment that under this procedure Parliament loses control as to whether it should or should not be extended. I concede at once that even under the form in the Bill, Parliament does retain the opportunity of deciding that and controlling the principle of extension or no extension.
Whereas in the one form we can extend the principle with minor Amendments or major Amendments or modifications or qualifications dictated by our present experience of the Bill, in the other form, no matter how many Amendments have become obvious administratively to the Government and to the House during the 12 months' working of the scheme, there would be no opportunity either for the House or for the Government to amend a single dot or cross a single "t" in the Bill as it stands. The Government will be as much handicapped as the House. The only right that they would have under the Bill as it stands is to extend it as it stands, and


if they want any Amendments they will have to bring in a totally new Measure. No doubt they could do so if they saw the necessity for it, but it seems to me that there are a great many things in the Bill, the merits or demerits of which will only be shown in the working out.
There has been a great deal of anxiety —I am not complaining about what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South, or his making political capital out of it, because that is what an Opposition is for—among those of us who voted against the Government on this question of possible cat-and-mouse criminal procedure. That was so because we had quite a genuine anxiety about it. We quite appreciate that the Government had to resist it, not because they wanted a cat-and-mouse system of successive prosecutions and penalties, but because in their opinion there was no danger of any such injustice taking place. The difference between those who voted for that Amendment on the Committee stage and those who voted against it was precisely on the question whether that kind of injustice would take place or not. It may turn out that the arguments on either side were right. Supposing that, in spite of the genuine indentions of the Government, there were a number of cases of these successive penalties for what virtually is one offence, the Government then presumably would wish to strengthen the Bill in such a way as to give effect to their true intentions, but they would have no opportunity under this procedure.
Clause 6—one admits that this is not the time to discuss it—in its present form is a much more innocuous Clause than it was when the Bill was first drafted. The Amendments in Committee have made a considerable difference to it, and the spirit in which those Amendments were moved removed a good deal of anxiety on some of the points. However, nobody can say how that Clause in practice will work out. Nobody can be sure at all that some of the original dangers to civil liberty as many of us saw them and to some extent still see them in the Bill, will not turn out in practice to be fears which were justified. If that is so, there is no reason to think, having regard to what Government spokesmen have already said on the sub-

ject, that they would not desire to amend the Clause in order to combat that state of affairs, but under this procedure they will have no opportunity of doing so.
4.15 p.m.
Finally, may I make an argument which, if not altogether conclusive, at any rate is important. This Bill provides for compulsory military service. It is a long time now since this House declared—and has maintained ever since—that the Army Act should be re-enacted every year. Even in the case of a voluntary standing army, Parliament has said that the Executive should have no power to maintain an Army at all for longer than 12 months at a time, and if they wish to retain a standing army after that, they must year by year come to Parliament for statutory authority to maintain even that voluntary army.
Here we are not dealing with a voluntary army but with a conscript army, and with an obligation upon people who have already served the time they were called upon to serve under the original Act. They have been transferred to the Reserve, and here is a new Bill to impose a further obligation upon them if the original obligation which they were conscripted to discharge has been discharged. It would seem to me to be a very great conflict of constitutional principle to extend by Order in Council a compulsory obligation for service after the original compulsory obligation has been satisfied, when, in the case of the maintenance of a voluntary standing army a new Act of Parliament is needed every year. I think we were wise to say, and to go on saying, that in the case of the Armed Forces Parliament should have an annual opportunity of changing its mind on the whole thing or on any detail. If we say that about the Army as a whole, it is really inconceivable why we should not say it about this Bill.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I agree fully with the arguments which have been adduced by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) for they are powerful and valid arguments. The most onerous duty that the State can put upon the subject is compulsory military service, and Parliament should keep the right to review that duty completely in its hands. It is quite wrong that provision should be made to extend that duty beyond the


period of one year merely by the formal assent of the House. I hope those arguments will have due weight given to them by the Government, and that the Government will accede to the real constitutional position, which should obtain in this country and has hitherto obtained before this Service Bill was submitted, that before the Government demands this service from its citizens it will do so only after a full and free expression of opinion on the Floor of this House.

Mr. Irvine: I hope the Government will pay the closest attention to the speeches that have been delivered. What we have witnessed in the passage of this Bill through Committee has been the magnanimity of the Attorney-General in bringing it into line with the Incitement to Disaffection Act, 1934, which was anathema to many hon. Members on this side of the House when it was before Parliament. There are also those of us on this side who, rightly or wrongly, greatly regret that the Government have not seen fit to make it clear that they will not serve the second notice when one has already been served and a prosecution has followed; and equally do we regret that there has been no guarantee that if a second notice is served another prosecution will not follow. On that hypothesis we believe that a reservist who follows that course of conduct will not be worth anything anyway to the Forces.
Some of us are in a genuine difficulty as to what to do upon this Amendment. I am not satisfied that it will be entirely illogical to support the Government at this point if they refuse to accept the Amendment. In fairness, let it be said that the matter has been debated and discussed, and a decision has been arrived at by the Committee. We take a democratic view of a decision by a majority, and I reserve to myself what decision I should make if the matter should go to a Division. I hope that the Government will at least consider the points which have been raised.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I found it difficult to follow the reasoning of the last part of the speech to which we have just listened. As I understood him, the hon. Member said that this matter had already been decided in the Committee stage, and therefore he would keep an open mind as to what steps he would take at this, the next, stage. I do not

know whether the hon. Member was present in the Committee at the somewhat mature hour of the evening when this subject was discussed. If he was not, I will recall to him the fact that the Committee was evenly divided and that the Deputy-Chairman, in accordance with the Rules and for the express purpose of keeping the matter open, gave his casting vote in favour of the Government. Therefore, the one thing that cannot be said about this matter is that the issue has already been settled.
I am bound to say that I found the arguments of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) much more effective. I have differed so often from the hon. Gentleman that I found it agreeable to be able to regard his arguments not merely as adroit—they are always that—but as sound. I am only sorry that his conversion to this view has apparently occurred since the Division took place at nearly Two o'Clock last Friday morning.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene? I said nothing about this matter at all. It is true that on that occasion I voted three times. I cast one vote against the Government when I thought they were wrong, and so I thought that in all fairness I should vote for them on another occasion when I thought they were wrong.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman persists in that line of argument I shall come to the conclusion that he is about to join hon. Members of the Liberal Party, below the Gangway. As he knows, there is more joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over the ninety and nine that went not astray and did not need repentance. In that spirit I welcomed the hon. Gentleman's speech. He was quite right when he put the emphasis on the point that it is only by accepting the Amendment that this House can retain any right to amend the Bill, if the matter is to be renewed in subsequent years. That is the basic difference between the procedure by affirmative Resolution and the procedure by Bill.
I found the Under-Secretary of State, whose debating skill I have known and respected now for 22 years, a little disingenuous—again at Two o'Clock in the morning—when he skated away from the issue. He adopted the argument that it


would always still be open to the Government to introduce a Bill, even if the Clause stood as it is. He went on to say:
The insertion of this Clause into the Bill does not preclude the method of introducing another Bill if that should seem to be more desirable. If we found, in the light of this year's experience, or in the light of the situation next year, that it was impossible to devise a satisfactory scheme for next year within the framework of this Bill, if it were essential to have some scheme we—and I am taking a different view from that of the right hon. Gentleman—would have to invite the House to pass a separate measure."—OFFICIAL REPORT. 1st March. 1951; Vol. 484, c. 2517.]
Of course, that is true so far as the Government are concerned, but it is not true for the House of Commons. It reserves to the Government the right to propose Amendments to their own legislation, but denies it to the House. That is the point of distinction between the two procedures.
The Under-Secretary is quite right when he says that the Government could do it, but in the present political situation this is not a Government-Opposition question, in the ordinary sense. It is a House of Commons-Government question. No-one would like to be quite certain who will be sitting on the Government benches at this time next year, and it is doubtful whether any Government should be able to deny to the House of Commons the right to renew and revise complex provisions of this kind. It may well be the opinion of this House in 12 months' time that periods of service of 15 days, or 18 months, may or may not be suitable. The whole call-up machinery, which has been hastily devised and hastily amended, sometimes in the dead of night, may appear to be inadequate. Some hon. Members may feel a little more strongly than I do on the question whether, Clause 6, even as amended, might not work in practice with some possibility of injustice. We do not know, and we cannot know until we have had an opportunity of seeing the machinery in action.
The very willingness of the Government to accept Amendments on various points show that they themselves had no very settled opinions when they introduced the Bill. I am very glad that they have accepted Amendments on many of these points. Surely they must admit that if two days debate can persuade them that alterations are required in the Bill, 12 months' practical experience may show it even more strongly. It is all very well for

the Under-Secretary to say that the Government can then introduce a Bill, but is it the case that any Government would necessarily do so? The inevitable pressure on the time of the House naturally inclines the Leader of the House—any Leader of the House—to try to exclude controversial business because it will take up time. Those pressures will be working the wrong way in this instance.
The Under-Secretary, or whoever is then sitting in his place, will be in a very much better position if he can go to the Leader of the House and say, "If we are to maintain this system at all, and I am advised by my military advisers that we must, we need a Bill." No Leader of the House could resist that approach, but he could very easily harden his heart when renewal could be effected by affirmative Resolution in one day. The Under-Secretary ought to put himself in a position to wrestle with the Leader of the House in 12 months' time in those circumstances, and I am trying to help him in that unequal struggle.
I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter, as they have been urged to do from their own benches. We feel very strongly on the matter. I agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that we are not dealing here with property rights or legal technicalities but with the lives and individual freedom of our fellow citizens. We have no right to surrender them to any Government of whatever political complexion, and I sincerely hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Lieut-Colonel Upton: I am anxious neither to upset nor unduly to encourage the somewhat precarious coalition in this House at the present moment on this issue. The argument is that the Army Act is an analogy, and so it is, within certain limits. It provides that a standing Army shall be maintained for 12 months. The Bill proposes to ensure that the Government have the right to call people up for a period of 15 days' training. I do not think that additional force is lent to the argument by the analogy of the Army Act.
Nevertheless, I believe that the principles involved in this legislation are of such great importance that the concession we are asking the Government to make is one of not very great magnitude.
4.30 p.m.
If the Government do agree to make the Bill renewable annually like the Army Act, they will not be making such a very great concession, especially in the light of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State which have been quoted by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). Those remarks show quite clearly that, in the mind of the Under-Secretary at least, there is a possibility that circumstances may arise which will inevitably entail some form of amending legislation. If, as may well be the case, some form of amending legislation it required in 12 months' time, that seems to take away very much from the force of the argument put forward by the Under-Secretary in favour of making the Bill renewable by Order in Council. For those reasons I support the representations which have been made on all sides of the House in favour of making the Bill an annual Bill.

Major Legge-Bourke: I want to support the Amendment. I should like to say how much I agreed with the argument for doing so which was put forward by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). It is not often that he and I find ourselves in such unanimity. He put his finger on points which I wish to emphasise. He said that the fact that the Army Act is an annual Act was a very strong point in favour of our proposal; and also that these men have already served their ordinary commitment and we are asking them to do something extra and that it is, therefore, essential that we should give the great opportunity for protest against the continuance of the principle if there should be anyone who wishes to protest. We have seen from the debates which took place on Second Reading and on the Committee stage that there is always likely to be considerable public protest about this, from certain sections anyway, both inside and outside the House.
It seems to me that the procedure which could be adopted by the Government if the Clause remained in the Bill, would enable them in another year to rush the matter through without our having a real opportunity to discuss every detail of the Bill. I can understand the Government not particularly wanting to revive opportunities for debates such as

we had on the Committee stage, but, nevertheless, surely they wish to preserve the right to air grievances. Obviously there will be some grievances. The Bill is rather extraordinary in that part of it is already operating while we are still debating it, and already I have heard of two cases of men aged 41 being called up although we have had assurances from right hon. Gentlemen opposite that very few people over 35 will be called up.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): What have they been called up for?

Major Legge-Bourke: They have been called up to serve with the active Army. I have also heard of a man—

The Chairman: That is rather a different point from the one which the House is discussing.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am trying to point out, Major Milner, that we have had assurances from His Majesty's Government that certain things will not happen under the Bill, part of which is already in operation, but that there are already signs to show that the Government are not abiding by some of their assurances. If the Government say that they will give us the assurance that if there is need for Amendment they will amend the Bill, how are we to be certain that they will do so? If the Clause remains in the Bill, it gives the Government the opportunity of renewing the Bill year by year and it cuts right across the period fixed in Clause 1. We ought really to be very doubtful about any assurances given by the Government on this matter right from the beginning. We must be most careful to see that Parliament's rights are assured.
If the Bill were to be renewed in the future, I believe that it would require drastic amendment. I believe that, in particular, drastic amendment would be required of Clause 1, which limits the service of these men to the United Kingdom. I am not at all sure of the reason why all these men are being called up in this country this year. It may very well be the fact that there is no Home Guard and no Civil Defence service and that the Government fear some threat to these Islands this year. Let us hope and pray that such a threat never occurs. As has been stressed in the earlier parts of the debate, I believe that these men will be


most needed as the technical tail of the active Army in Germany, and the time may come when these men ought to be called up there. If we pass the Clause, we are binding ourselves only to calling up men in the United Kingdom which may be the place where they cannot be used to the best effect.
The Government ought to give us an assurance that they will provide every facility for amendment of the Bill, whether it be by Private Members putting down Amendments or by the Government putting down Amendments. Even if we delete the Clause from the Bill, the Government still have the power to come before Parliament and renew the Bill. We are not stopping the Government doing that. All we are asking the Government to do is to guarantee that we shall have the opportunity of moving Amendments if we wish to do so.
I do not know if the Government will use in defence of their retaining the Clause in the Bill, the fact that the National Service Act is not an annual Act like the Army Act is. Again, I would come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that the National Service man has done his term of service under the National Service Act and that is covered by the National Service Act we do not concern ourselves here with it; but what we are asking now is that men should come back for an additional job unexpected at the time they first did their service under the existing legislation.
That is why I say that, as Private Members of the House, we must preserve the right to move Amendments each year to this legislation, just as we have the right to move Amendments to the Army Act each year. I hope that the Government will listen to the very great pressure which is being put on them from both sides of the House and give the House these facilities.

Mr. Stewart: I have endeavoured to give most careful attention to the arguments which have been advanced, as the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) said, from all parts of the House. If I followed them correctly, there are two main lines of support for the Amendment. One is concerned with administrative and military

matters and the other with the more profound constitutional questions first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
I shall deal first with the administrative and military matters. It is argued that in any of the subsequent years during which an Order in Council may be presented we might require different and greater powers of call-up than are contained in the Bill and that a simple process of bringing the Bill into force again by Order in Council would not suffice. I submit to the House that if that were all we were concerned with, there would be no real necessity for the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), asked the Government to consider whether the Clause was really necessary. On the purely administrative and military argument, I would say that the burden of proof was on the other side and would ask if there was any real necessity for the Amendment.
With the Clause in the Bill, two ways of proceeding are open, by introducing a new Bill or by continuing this Bill. Quite clearly it is open either to this Government, or to any government, during the years that are involved, having looked at the military situation at the time, to say to itself, "Is the situation such that the powers given under this Bill provide an adequate scheme for this year?" If the answer to that question is, "Yes," surely no useful purpose is served—I speak again purely with relation to the administrative and military arguments—in going through the procedure of a Bill? If the answer to that question is, "No," the possibility of introducing a Bill is again before us——

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silverman rose—

Mr. Stewart: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall come to the point in which he is specially interested a little later.

Mr. Silverman: I do not want to refer to that. In the argument which my hon. Friend is putting to the House now, has he not missed the important point that if we do it under the Bill the Government will be the sole judge of whether there shall be any Amendment or not, whereas if we do it the other way, the House, too, may take part in it?

Mr. Stewart: I appreciate that point, but if this Amendment is carried and the Clause is deleted, it simply means that next year this Measure has to come to an end. The Government are still the judge of whether or not to introduce any Bill dealing with this subject. Further, it is open to the House under this Clause to put the Government in that position by refusing its consent to the Order in Council. If the Government of the day attempts merely to reproduce the scheme in this Bill by Order in Council, and if it is the opinion of the House that the matter from a military and administrative point of view would be better done by another scheme, it is entirely in the hands of the House, by refusing assent to the Order in Council, to put the Government in the position where it must introduce a Bill.
I submit, therefore, that all that is being done by this Amendment—again purely on the administrative and military side—is to close one way of proceeding that might be convenient. It is not fundamentally adding any powers or opportunities either to the House or the Government that do not exist in the Bill. It has been suggested that the Government will learn from the experience of the working of the Bill this year, both with regard to the treatment of claims for exemption and also with regard to the actual mechanism of call-up, and that, therefore, almost certainly we shall wish to make Amendments. I am bound to say, however, that I think the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was pressing the argument a bit hard when he prayed in aid the willingness of the Government so far to accept Amendments as a reason for being certain that the arrangements made under the Bill are bound to require further amendment.
Supposing the Government had taken a different view; supposing we had rigidly opposed all the Amendments proposed, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames would have been the first to have said, "This Bill, which the Government has so obstinately refused to amend this year, is bound to require amendment next year." He would have used our refusal to accept Amendments this year as an argument to reach exactly the same conclusion as that to which he is now trying to drive us, and I do not think he can

himself attach much weight to that argument.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Surely, the fact that two days' debate in this House convinced His Majesty's Government that the Bill as drafted required substantial change is some indication that all this subject matter is so uncertain as to make it almost sure that 12 months actual experience of the operating of the system will make that imperative?

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Stewart: I cannot feel that the hon. Gentleman has really established his case there. If that is to be accepted, it could be argued in almost any Measure in which the Government showed willingness to accept Amendments. There is simply no end to the argument.
I still maintain the point that it is open to the House, by rejecting the Order in Council, to put the Government in a position where they must introduce a Bill. I further state this, that if anything in the experience of this year's working shows that a mere re-enactment by Order in Council of this Bill would be inappropriate to the needs of next year, and if next year it were necessary to have a scheme of this kind at all, if both those provisos were fulfilled, then the Government would proceed by Bill. But there is really no reason why a method of procedure that may, for all we know, prove to be convenient, should be precluded, as would be the case if this Amendment were accepted.
We have at present more than one way of dealing with the possibility of next year and subsequent years. Fundamentally the effect of this Amendment is to reduce that choice of ways, and that does not seem to me to be, in the interests of secure administration and of getting what the House really wants, a satisfactory way to proceed. We cannot accept the view which has sometimes been suggested from the benches opposite, that any method of procedure which is inconvenient to the Government is bound for that reason to be meritorious. Now I want to turn——

Brigadier Peto: Before the Under-Secretary leaves that point, he has not really answered the very apposite point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). The hon. Gentleman said, "We have the opportunities, we have the ways," but who


is he referring to? The Government presumably, not the House of Commons, but it is the House of Commons which does the legislating.

Mr. Stewart: I was about to turn to the point put by my hon. Friend. I have already pointed out that in the Clause as it stands, since the method is that of an Order in Council which receives the consent of both Houses of Parliament, the point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind is covered. This Clause does not enable the Government to proceed without the approval of the House. It is open to the House, if it wishes to compel the Government of the day to proceed by Bill rather than by Order in Council, to do so. I really do not think I can labour that point any more. I have emphasised it two or three times.
With regard to the constitutional objections of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, I think I am right in saying that the great question he has in mind is that, of all constitutional matters, the maintenance of Armed Forces—of what used to be described as a standing Army or anything approaching it—is one over which the House of Commons ought especially to keep control, and to keep it very firmly.

Earl Winterton: That is the purpose of the Army Annual Act.

Mr. Stewart: I am aware of that. The main criticism of this Clause made by my hon. Friend was that it was relaxing the hold over the maintenance of the standing Army. I want to draw attention to the fact that the National Service Acts are not annual ones. I am well aware of the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), which I see he is anxious to make again if I am in danger of forgetting it. It is true that the National Service Acts are not annual Acts, but I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne is about to remind me that although under the National Service Acts we can call men up, we cannot retain them with the Forces unless the Army Annual Act is enforced.
The Armed Forces, whether in existence by virtue of the National Service Acts or by virtue of this Bill, all depend for the continued existence of the Force

on the military discipline which can only be continued year by year by this House. If that is true of the National Service Acts, it is also true of the men called up under this Bill. As hon. Members will see from Clause 5, although it might be possible for a Government to renew this Bill by Order in Council—and that would require one step of consent by the House—even when that was done the Forces could be called up but they could not be maintained, they could not be trained. The whole discipline of them would cease to exist if Parliament did not continue to give its annual consent under the Army Act. The Bill, therefore, like the National Service Acts, can have no force, virtue, or practical effect, except by the annual consent of the House as voiced through the Army Act.

Mr. S. Silverman: Surely my hon. Friend is missing the whole point. The Army Act does two things. First, it gives the Executive the right to have an Army at all; but besides that, it provides an annual Parliamentary review of the whole of the machinery of discipline whereby the Army is maintained. In the old days, as my hon. Friend will remember, annually the House of Commons used to have an all-night sitting on the Army Act and every Clause was subjected to scrutiny. What my hon. Friend is now saying is that we are to continue to do that about discipline but that we must not do it about the terms and conditions, purposes and rules, whereby people are recalled to actual service. I cannot follow that argument at all.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask the Under-Secretary also to remember that we have an assurance from the Government that the same lot of men are not to be called up again? Whether the Minister of Defence is now regretting what he said——

Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Shinwell indicated dissent.

Major Legge-Bourke: —as far as men for the active Army are concerned, I do not know, but we have that assurance. Therefore, there is to be a new batch of men every year. Circumstances may so change that we really ought to have this opportunity which has been suggested.

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that my hon. Friend is right in saying that I am


missing the whole point, unless he is now making a quite different point to that which he made earlier. Fundamentally, his point—and it was what was taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite—was that by making provision for re-enactment of the Bill by Order in Council, we are relaxing Parliamentary control over the standing Army. That is the head and front of his objection.
What I am saying is that if Parliament wishes to bring the whole procedure under the Bill to an end, it has, whether the Clause is in the Bill or not, an annual opportunity of doing so because refusal to assent to the Army Act can bring to an end the whole process of maintaining any Forces whatever. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is ridiculous."] No. Hon. Members are overlooking the fact that we are now, surely, at one of the central points of the Constitution of this country. It is through the Army Act that Parliament ultimately maintains its control over the Executive.

Earl Winterton: No; it is the Crown.

Mr. Stewart: It is one of the main levers through which the final Parliamentary control is exercised. That instrument of control applies just as much to men who are with the Forces by virtue of the Bill as to men who are with the Forces for any other reason.
Therefore, the real answer to the Amendment is that the constitutional position is safeguarded by the fact that the Order in Council requires the consent of Parliament, and by the operation of the Army Act on the Bill. On the administrative and military sides, the position is safeguarded by the fact that whereas we can, as the Bill now stands, proceed either by a new Bill or by Order in Council, if the Amendment were carried one of the ways of proceeding, which might very well be a convenient and reasonable way to proceed, would be closed to us. I therefore urge the House, having considered both the constitutional and the administrative arguments at stake on this issue, to reject the Amendment.

Brigadier Thorp: I should like to make two points. The first is about the House voting against the Resolution. Am I to understand that when the Order in Council comes up next year, there will be a free vote of the House——

Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Shinwell indicated dissent.

Brigadier Thorp: —and that, therefore, hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are the followers of the present Government will not, if they do not want to, have to go into the Lobby with the Government? It will be interesting to see what happens.
The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) said that some sort of coalition seemed to be taking place. The hon. and gallant Member is right, but the coalition seems at present to be the whole of Parliament against the Government. There has not been a single speech today on this Amendement, in support of the Government, except that by the Minister, whose speech was really a continuous number of wides. He never bowled a straight ball during the whole of his speech; he was dodging around the whole time.
My next point, and really the most serious one, is that we must consider not only what is useful or easy for the Government of today or for the Service Departments. What we have to consider is the men who are being called up for the 15 days, or longer. I am convinced that the experience of the Service Departments, of the Government and of the people during the next six months will be such that it will be necessary to make tremendous changes in the present application of the Bill. Therefore, we ought to agree to the Amendment, which will more than make it possible—it will make it a certainty—that the Bill, or a form of the Bill, will be brought up next year and can be discussed in detail by the House as a whole.

Mr. John McKay: I have listened very keenly to the argument. Although the whole matter seems to be very contentious, it does not necessarily follow that the Government are wrong. If the matter is pushed to a vote, I shall vote for the Government, and I want to try to show why I ought to support them.
We have been discussing this whole problem for two or three days. We have had the opportunity of amending the Bill and making it a satisfactory Measure. No one will dispute that there has been every opportunity to discuss the subject in all its fullness. We, as a body of understanding people and knowing the subject, have made definite decisions,


and we believe that while there may still be points of criticism on the Bill, it is nevertheless in the main a fairly satisfactory Bill to meet the existing emergency.
That being so, there arises the question of whether we should annul the Clause so that the matter can be brought forward again—many times—in the ordinary course of the Business of the House. No matter what Bill is passed in the House, there is always criticism and feeling afterwards that something much better could have been provided. That seems to be the position today. There is nothing new in that; that position arises regularly.
Let us get to the point at issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is sometimes very satisfactory to have a good preliminary; it prepares the way for the things that matter. The attitude of the Opposition seems to be that, despite all the machinery that exists in the House to develop a viewpoint against any existing legislation, on the present subject there is still a feeling, despite all the debates and the reasoning we have heard, that something may arise within 12 months and that that something may be so vital that it is essential that the House should have full liberty to discuss the whole position and to bring in Amendments if necessary.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Ian Harvey: That is not only their attitude, but the point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).

Mr. McKay: I do not quite follow that. After all, the Government are open to public opinion and open to influences. If there is any vital issue in the future, if new circumstances which we cannot see at the moment arise indicating that there is some absolute need for a revision of this Bill, is it the assumption that, despite the feeling of anxiety and the need for some vital revision of the Bill, the Government will be so stupid and silly that they will stand hard and fast and refuse to admit that public anxiety but push this thing forward and refuse to allow the House to discuss the matter?

Mr. S. Silverman: Does my hon. Friend realise that if he pursues this argument very far, he will get as far as the abdication of Parliament altogether? If there is to be any public anxiety of that kind,

the proper place for expressing it is the House of Commons. Why should we today preclude ourselves from having that opportunity 12 months hence?

Mr. McKay: Well, that is a great point. It seems impossible to get over it. Here is the House of Commons representing the country and my hon. Friend suggests that if something vital has arisen in the country, some uprising of public opinion that is vital, there is a great necessity for bringing in a new Bill. He is putting the position to us that, despite that new rising of public opinion against the present legislation, the Clause we are now debating will prevent anyone in this House from raising the matter. It would mean preventing it for a very long time, for 12 months, because an Order in Council has to be brought into the House providing that the Act shall be continued for another year. When the Order in Council comes before the House for discussion, the House will be given a full opportunity to discuss all aspects of the law as it then exists.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Will my hon. Friend allow me?——

Mr. McKay: No. I know that some of the supporters of the Government are anxious to intervene to give an opposite opinion on this subject; some people always are. The position is simply that the Order in Council will probably be presented within nine months. It will naturally be presented before the actual 12 months have gone by and there will be an opportunity then for fuller discussion. If there is anything vital or of great importance, it is bound to be exposed and the Government will be shown the necessity for some revision.
I have sufficient faith in the Labour Government—[Interruption]—I have sufficient faith in the Labour Government—which I presume all hon. Members here ought to have, but obviously have not—on a matter of this character, which to me is not fundamental at all, to believe that if any new position does develop in the country which points to the necessity for revising this Bill, then before the necessity comes for bringing in the Order in Council, the Government themselves will bring in new legislation to meet the new position. If hon. Members have no faith in the Government, or think they are not sufficiently intelligent to understand public opinion and to see a new


situation which has arisen relative to this subject, they have very little faith and the Government themselves have very little intelligence.
I believe that those who are supporting the Government have faith in the Government and I believe that those on these benches are men with understanding, men who know the feelings in the country. They have faith in the Government which they have been supporting for six years. They have sufficient belief that when the time does arrive, as new eventualities materialise, the Government will bring in legislation necessary to meet the occasion.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: We must congratulate the Government on the new ally they find in the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay). He is a gladiator of the finest sort. He is prepared to lash out at all and sundry but he ended by stabbing the Minister of Defence in the back by saying that next year we know the Government will give way.
This is surely a very simple matter. The whole House will agree that this matter is contentious and untried, and that there is bound to be need for revision. The Under-Secretary of State has come forward and suggested two enormous steam hammers to crack these two small questions. The first is the suggestion that, if need be, the House will protect the citizens of this country by means of the Army Act. That seems to be going to extraordinary lengths to deal with a comparatively small matter.
The second suggestion is that the House could reject the draft order. But the hon. Gentleman must know, after this afternoon's discussion as to when a Government should and should not resign, that it is precisely on a question such as the rejection of a draft order that a Government would be forced to resign. He said merely that they would be forced to bring forward a new Bill. He must appreciate that the rejection of a draft order would give an extraordinary impression abroad. People would read in the newspapers, "The House of Commons votes against call-up of Z men." That would delight people in Moscow and our enemies all over the world. Yet the hon. Gentleman knows there could be no such thing as a free vote in the House on this matter.

I hope he will look at the question again, because it is a simple problem which could easily be solved.

Mr. James Hudson: The hon. and gallant Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp) said just now that he thought my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State had not bowled very straight. I thought that my hon. Friend bowled very well, and indeed if he bowled only straight balls he would not be a very good bowler on a wicket such as the one on which we are batting. The balls he bowled were very well adapted to the situation we are facing. I am not so sure about those which have been bowled by hon. Gentlemen opposite, for although they are speaking a good deal at present about constitutional rights and Parliamentary protection they are engaged in the usual game of finding a loophole or a weakness in the Government's armour.
As everyone knows, I am not very keen about any part of this Bill but I am not keen on helping the Opposition to find a means of making the Government's position hopeless while doing nothing for the causes which I want to serve by these discussions. I listened just now to the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) speaking about the draft order and the discussions which might take place upon it in this House and the terrible consequences which there would be in Moscow, and so on.

Mr. H. Fraser: I did not speak about the discussions but about the rejection of such an order.

Mr. Hudson: Perhaps even the discussions would have some effect upon Moscow if it is Moscow that we have to think about. But what will be Moscow's reflection on what will transpire if we agree to the proposal now being made by hon. Members? Hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently want a means to enable the whole of the proposals of this Bill to be turned over again each year; it is to last for one year, and we are then to begin again, with the full opportunities which the Parliamentary Opposition has, with the great political difficulties there are, especially in this Parliament, to have the whole question turned over again, with Moscow, I suppose, watching. Quite clearly if the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone is anxious about Moscow and


the effects on Moscow, he should be listening to the arguments which the Government have advanced. The hon. Member was at all events right to the extent that Clause 12 (2) provides:
A draft of any Order in Council proposed to be made under this section shall be laid before Parliament, and the draft shall not be submitted to His Majesty except in pursuance of an address presented by each House of Parliament.…

Air Commodore Harvey: If the hon. Member is in opposition this time next year, what will be his attitude then?

Mr. Hudson: Maybe I shall be in a better position than I should be in now by supporting a Tory Opposition which has used every scrap of pressure that it could to force this Bill on the House and on me, with all the disadvantages which the Bill involves. I shall be in a better position than I should be in supporting now a Tory Opposition which has not in mind any of the issues about which I am seriously concerned. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) say, as I was speaking, that it was shocking that I should have a view of that sort——

Mr. S. Silverman: I did not say that.

Mr. Hudson: Then I do not doubt that it came from the Tories themselves.

Mr. Silverman: It is not my hon. Friend's views that I find shocking.

Mr. Hudson: Very well. It is my views that I am stating. I wish to turn to my hon. Friend's speech and argue with him because I feel that in doing so I am dealing with a more important issue than when I argue with the Opposition. My hon. Friend makes speeches that matter to me a good deal. I listen to them; I do not profess always to be able to argue against him; indeed, the man best able to do so is the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I wish to consider the implications of carrying this issue to the point he has suggested. I believe that we are in the difficult position, which I certainly dislike but from which I cannot run away, that the Bill can be dealt with year by year under the arrangements provided under Clause 12 (2). I am prepared to accept the protection that gives me, and I am not prepared to play the game of the

Opposition, which I am quite certain is devised not for any consideration that has to do with conscientious objectors or indeed the real welfare of the Class Z men. They are as usual concerned——

5.15 p.m.

Brigadier Thorp: The hon. Member is now accusing me of having been most insincere in my speech. I said that I was speaking for the men who will be called up. I have been in one of the Services for 30 years. The hon. Member has no right to make that sort of remark.

Mr. Hudson: I did not accuse the hon. and gallant Member of being insincere. I accused him of being a very good bowler. He knows how he can send a ball twisting instead of straight. That is what he is doing at the moment. I am making no other accusation.
In view of the situation, I want to appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne not to push the Tory case too far.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I appeal to my hon. Friend not to accuse me of pushing the Tory case? I have never done so and I am not now doing so. All I am asking—and I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have been the first Member of the House to support me—is that if it is necessary for this Bill to be prolonged beyond the one year for which the Bill at present provides, it shall be done in such a fashion as will enable the House to amend the Measure instead of the prolongation being effected in a way which enables us only to accept or reject the proposal as it stands. That is all.

Mr. Hudson: I concede my hon. Friend his case, subject to the further point that in the case of any order we have the opportunity, under Clause 12 (2), to debate our objections.

Mr. Silverman: We have not——

Mr. Hudson: That is my view, and I am stating my view as against my hon. Friend's, that in the case of any order that comes forward under the terms of this Bill we shall have an opportunity of debating it.

Mr. Silverman: But we cannot amend the order.

Mr. Hudson: We can debate it on the Address which, under the terms of subsection (2), must come before the House. I am prepared again to assert that we have a considerable measure of Parliamentary protection in this matter. As my hon. Friend does not wish me to say anything more about the Tory case, I will say that I hope that his case, good as it may be, will not lead him any further towards classing himself with hon. Members opposite who have no concern whatever with any of the views which my hon. Friend usually puts forward.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Some of the things which the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) has said are, as I think he will, on reflection, agree, so unworthy of him that I am sure he will regret having said them. To charge us with not being concerned with the welfare of the Class Z men is to make a charge which he knows perfectly well is untrue and unfounded.
I do not think that he has helped the discussion by charging my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp)—although I do not think he minds very much—with a certain ability to bowl spinners— [An HON. MEMBER: "Twisters."]— twisters. I was hoping to hear from the hon. Member a reasonable case in support of the Government to which I might direct my argument. The hon. Member has not produced that. Indeed no one from the other side of the House, with the possible exception of the Under-Secretary of State, to whose speech I shall refer in a moment, has produced any sort of argument in support of the Government's case.
The main argument used by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) was that he had faith in the Government. He might have thought of a more reasonable and less emotional point to put to us. He started by telling us, "I feel somehow that if this is brought to a Division, I shall have to vote with the Government." He used words to that effect. Clearly it was a matter of feeling with him—something to do with whipping, I think. Clearly it had nothing to do with the argument at all, because, if my memory holds, the hon. Gentleman was not with us much during that long night Sitting when we discussed many of the difficult problems in this Bill. I would say to him that it is

not a question of having faith in the Government, but of having faith in Parliament, that we are discussing today. It is Parliament that ought to have the right to decide whether this Bill needs amending or not. That, after all, is the main point of difference between the Government and the Opposition.
It is wrong of the hon. Member for Ealing, North, to say that we on this side of the House are not interested in the points put about conscientious objection and about Clause 6. Indeed, most of the Amendments to Clause 6 were moved by hon. Members on this side of the House. If only he had paused a little before making those outrageous accusations against us, we would have derived more benefit from his speech. If the hon. Member for Wallsend had been with us during that long night when we were discussing so many of the points in this Bill, he would have remembered that the Minister of Defence used this argument in endeavouring to resist one of the Amendments to Clause 2 moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). The Minister of Defence said:
But we are not dealing with what is to happen next year. We are dealing with what will happen this year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 2384.]
That was the line of the argument used once or twice by the Government in resisting various Clauses in the Bill. We were reminded over and over again that what matters is this year. What happens next year we shall perhaps learn from experience. That was the whole pattern of the case that was put so well, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and by my hon. Friend——

Mr. McKay: Is it not correct that that is the same case as the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), is putting now? It is a case of something that will happen in the future. He thinks that something different may happen and that is why it should be done.

Mr. Low: I do not think the hon. Member for Wallsend has been following me very carefully. I must have been more stupid and obscure than usual.

Mr. McKay: That is quite possible.

Mr. Low: It is, as the hon. Member says, quite possible, but most of my


words were quoted from the Minister of Defence, so he must take part of the blame. It seemed clear to me that what the Minister of Defence was saying on several occasions was that what we were concerned with in the Committee stage discussions of this Bill was what is to happen this year. The case put by the Under-Secretary of State was that the Government should have the power by Order in Council to prolong the Bill over the next year, the year after and the year after that, if they so decided. It is our case that, by experience, we feel we are not only likely but more than likely to want to amend this Bill, both in its military and administrative Clauses in so far as those things are covered, and in the very vital and important Clauses which so concerned the hon. Member for Ealing, North, and a number of his hon. Friends, and Clause 6 in particular. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour knows, there is one Clause in the Bill which I think very wrong, namely, Clause 7, which makes no provision for the protection of——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member is out of order in referring to Clause 7. He has already mentioned Clause 6; now he is mentioning Clause 7. I do not think these matters of detail can have any reference to the present Amendment.

Mr. Low: I thought the matter we were discussing was whether this Bill should be renewed by an Order in Council which forbade amendment, or whether the Bill was of such a nature, and the Clauses in it were so likely to need amendment, that we should therefore not give the Government this Order in Council. So far, everybody has concentrated on Clause 6, and I do not see why we should not be permitted to mention any Clause.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think Clause 6 has been mentioned except in passing. The first contention of the hon. Member is perfectly correct in that we are discussing whether the matter should be dealt with under this Bill, or by a fresh Bill each year. I do not think the hon. Member should go into detail on Clauses. He may mention them in passing, perhaps, but surely that is not the primary argument.

Mr. Low: I will leave that point, but I earnestly entreat the Government to reconsider their position. Clearly this is a Bill which concerns the individual person, and therefore it is a Bill which this House should watch very closely. We should be thinking far more about what is the duty of Parliament in this matter than what are the rights and powers of the Government. It seems to me that the Government are quite wrong if they are frightened of having another long discussion on the many very important matters which were discussed last Thursday; and for this reason I hope that they will decide to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Wyatt: We all know the reason why we are debating this rather absurd Amendment. Last Thursday night, when there was a Division immediately preceding the discussion of this Clause, the Opposition came within two of the Government's total of votes and immediately, when we came to the next Clause, which happened to be Clause 12, they thought it would be a good thing if they could try to get the Government out altogether.
Accordingly, when it came to the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," they decided to try to divide the House again and get a victory. They did not quite get a victory and so the Clause is still in the Bill. Having done this absurd thing on Thursday, which was one of the most fatuous manœuvres seen in Parliament for many months, they now feel bound, with rather pompous speeches, to seek to disrupt the proceedings again.
What is all this about? We on this side of the House understand that the Opposition are fully confident of being the Government themselves within a year's time; so that they can have no real confidence in an Amendment to take away from the Government powers which the Government now have and which they might be using in a year's time. What possible reason could there be for the Opposition to think that the Government should not have these powers?
Obviously, if it becomes clear over the following year that certain Amendments to the Act are needed, if it is to be continued for a second year, it is much more within the interests of the Government to secure those Amendments than for


anybody else. It will be on the recommendation of their military advisers, who have worked the scheme for a year, for them to decide about any Amendments or alterations, if any are necessary, in the detailed planning and working in the second year.
The Opposition would neither be expected, nor have the experience to decide on them. No Government in its senses would accept Amendments from the Opposition on matters of detail of this kind and no such Amendments would be carried in the House. In this particular manœuvre of the Opposition we have a further extension of the new policy recently adopted by the Opposition, which is simply to do what they always said we were wrong to do before the war, which is to vote against rearmament, on the ground that they do not trust the Government.
Here is a power given to the Government to put this Bill into operation for a second, third and fourth year if necessary; but the Opposition do not trust them with that power. They say that this amount of re-armament and military preparedness is too great and that they do not trust the Government with these powers. They want to curtail them and to have the debate all over again next year.
5.30 p.m.
Just as they suddenly moved a Motion of Censure against the Government during the Defence debate and voted against re-armament, so they are trying to do something similar today. Where are all these arguments that the Labour Opposition were wrong to vote against the Government on re-armament before the war, when that is exactly what the Tory Opposition find themselves doing now? I hope we shall have no more of that nonsense in the future.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: This is a kindergarten speech.

Mr. Wyatt: I have to consider my audience. It has been a lamentable feature of the Opposition during the six years I have been in the House that they have been singularly ineffective in their manner of opposition. I suppose that at the close of this period it should be no surprise to find them handing over the

burden of their leadership to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I hope that they feel happy under his ardent championship. It has been their custom to say that they can find no sense in his arguments. Very often I feel inclined to agree with them. Now it appears that they can see possible sense in his arguments, though we know perfectly well that, if they were the Government of the day, this is the Clause they would have and that they would not accept any Amendment to delete it from the Bill.
There would be no gain in taking this Clause from the Bill. If this Measure is found to work well there will be no need to amend it, so why waste the time of Parliament by discussing it again? If it is found necessary to have any Amendments, it will be for the Government who want the Amendments to bring the matter forward.

Mr. McCorquodale: We have had a very pleasant debate on this subject. Considering that it arose out of a tie in the early hours of the morning last week, I rather regretted—and I think that probably he did—the heat which the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), brought into the debate. We all regard him as a man of high principles, though we do not all hold those principles with equal enthusiasm. I am sorry that he should have thought it necessary or desirable to impute motives to my hon. Friends which, on reflection, I am sure that he will consider to be unfounded. I do not want to pursue that matter further.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt). I believe that the hon. Gentleman only came in after this debate started. Some of us who have sat on these benches throughout the debate were amused at the exertions displayed by the hon. Gentleman who, I think, acts as assistant to the Minister of Defence. Obviously he was endeavouring to find somebody to support the Government and one or two candidates got up and walked rapidly away rather than put themselves in that position. However, the hon. Gentleman finally fixed on the hon. Member for Aston. As the hon. Gentleman spoke very warmly the other night in our favour on another Amendment and then voted against us, we presume that he thought that he ought to earn his passage back into the good books


of his right hon. Friends. I suggest that it is only fair and proper that, having spoken for us and voted against us the other night, he should talk against us today and vote for us on this Amendment. After all, I believe that the hon. Gentleman believes most emphatically in fair shares for all.
I wish to make some serious comments to the Minister of Defence. This is a major Bill. It is a temporary Measure but it is one which is affecting, and will affect, the lives and positions of a great number of His Majesty's subjects for whom we speak in this Parliament. It is the duty of this House to watch these matters. As the proposals in this Bill, which we have not objected to, are novel proposals, and as we are pursuing an uncharted course and planning out a new scheme, surely it would be a good thing, not only for the House but also for the administration of the scheme itself, that at the end of 12 months this House should have a review of the working of this Measure. Then not only could we consider it, but each one of us could suggest improvements and Amendments.
If we proceeded with the proposals in the Bill, we should have an Order in Council. Then all that Parliament could do would be to vote in favour or against that Order in Council. I submit in all earnestness that this is not a party issue and that we do not know what world conditions may be in a year's time. It may well be that an action by a large number of Members of Parliament in opposing an Order in Council to keep in operation a Bill dealing with military measures might be misinterpreted throughout the world, not only behind the Iron Curtain but among our friends. It might create the worst possible impression. Surely, no one would wish to do that. I think that that demolishes the main gravamen of the case put by the Under-Secretary of State for War.
In matters of defence and foreign policy it is not desirable that the only method by which Members in all parts of the House can express their view on these subjects should be by a direct vote of censure of the Government. I am sure that is a doctrine which is held on both sides of the House. Therefore, the course suggested by the Under-Secretary, that it is open to us to object to the draft Order

in Council or even to vote against it, is not one on which we can place any reliance, because we do not know what the international situation may be at that time.
We all know the way in which these matters work in Government administration in these days. If this Clause is left in the Bill and if it is left to the Government to choose, there will be almost irresistible pressure from the advisers of the Government to have this matter pushed through as quickly as possible, with the least possible chance of amendment and without having all over again discussion of the pacifist or the conscientious objection issue, or the issue against Clause 6 and all the other questions. I speak now in the full realisation that it may well be that the position in the House is reversed in a year's time.

Mr. Wyatt: Would it not be possible in a debate on an Order in Council to raise these pacifist and other issues as one of the reasons why hon. Members wanted to have the Order in Council rejected?

Mr. McCorquodale: I believe that if any hon. Members wished to suggest improvements to meet their views, the improvements would not be possible. It is vain to get up and clamour for all sorts of alterations when one cannot move an Amendment which would put them into effect. Whoever is sitting on the Government Benches in a year's time if the military situation demands that a Measure on something like these lines should be brought in again next year—we all hope it will not be the case but it may be—I believe that the combined pressure of the Leader of the House, whether he be Labour or Conservative, and of the officials who have to operate these matters, would make it almost impossible for the Government to resist that pressure and to say "No, we will have a fresh Bill," when there is in Clause 12 power to proceed by Order in Council.
I would therefore ask the Minister whether he will not meet the House, because it is a very large proportion of the House. It is only a small matter from his point of view, but it is the duty of Parliament to retain control over an important subject affecting the lives of a number of our citizens. If the right hon.


Gentleman could meet us in this way, we should be very grateful, because we have not endeavoured to obstruct the passage of this Bill.

Mr. Shinwell: The House has encountered, as it seems to me, a genuinely difficult problem. I am bound to say that the arguments appeared to me to be evenly balanced, but I shall give the House the reasons why, in the opinion of the Government—the quite genuine reasons, as I hope the House will accept from me—we cannot accept this Amendment.
To begin with, let us ask ourselves why a Bill of this kind is regarded as necessary. I do not wish to dilate on the general international situation; indeed, hon. Members are familiar with various facts of that situation, but the answer is that we were apprehensive about the possibilities latent in the international situation, which might evolve into something serious before the end of the year.
I confess, quite frankly, that we had before us the choice of proceeding with much more drastic proposals or proceeding with these more modest proposals, and we came down on the side of the provisions of this Bill. For one reason, we were very anxious to avoid any serious dislocation of industry and of our national economy. There was always the risk, which hon. Members will perceive, that if we interfered too drastically with our industry and economy, it would so weaken our position as to make a very welcome gift to a potential aggressor. That argument has been adduced frequently, and I do not wish to elaborate it. Therefore, we decided to proceed with these proposals.
Then, we had to consider whether, in the recall of Class Z reservists, the men in Class G and some other elements which are provided for in the Bill, we should seek power to recall the same men for a period of years, subject, of course, to natural wastage, such as men becoming older and various other conditions which might ensue. As hon. Members in all quarters of the House will agree, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the present situation. We make assumptions; indeed, we are bound, in the military and international sphere, to make assumptions. Some of them may be falsified; others, unhappily, might be well founded. There-

fore, in this uncertain situation, we decided to limit the actual call up to 1951, and to confine it to the men who were to be called up this year, without any repetition in the following years.
That has been subject to criticism from hon. Members of the Opposition. It has been suggested, for example, that we should have made provision for the recall, at any rate, of some of the men being called up this year. That is a matter of opinion; indeed, there may be something to be said for the arguments so adduced, but we decided to adopt the provision in the Bill, namely, that we should recall a certain number of the elements concerned this year, and make no provision for recalling the same men next year.
Then we had to consider whether we should make provision for the continued operation of the provisions of the Bill over succeeding years. It was when we came to that point that we were faced with this dilemma—whether we should confine ourselves to these 12 months, and take a chance that nothing serious might occur, in which case we should not need to have recourse to similar facilities; or whether we should make provision—and, again, it is a gamble, pure speculation and mere conjecture—for the operation of the Bill over a period of years.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to taking a chance. Will he deal with this question? If Clause 12 is omitted, and the operation of the Bill requires to be extended for a further year, why cannot that be done without another Bill?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: That is the point of substance in this debate to which I am about to come, but I thought it would meet the convenience of the House if I were to impart to it the history preceding the presentation of this Measure, as well as the background to it. However, I shall not proceed any further in that direction, but will come directly to the point of substance.
This Measure is, to a very large extent, an experiment: I do not dispute that. We are calling up, as far as the majority are concerned, men for 15 days' training, and we are anxious—assurances have been given, and we shall do all we possibly can to confirm those assurances—that these men should be properly trained.


There will be intensive training during that period, and we shall make the very best use of the services of these men. It may be—we cannot tell—that the experiment will prove unsuccessful, or only moderately successful; it may be that our military advisers, in the light of what transpires, may decide that something more is required.
Moreover, it may be the opinion of hon. Members who are acquainted with these subjects, and of hon. Members generally, who are informed about certain aspects of this problem by their constituents and others, that certain changes are required. Obviously, if that is so, no Government, whether this Government or any other, could resist the pressure exerted by hon. Members and by public opinion. I hope that it may not be the case, but, if it is found that changes are required, and that the substance of the Measure is proved to be ineffective, the Government must effect the necessary changes. But, on the other hand—and it might well be so—if the Bill in its present form should prove effective, and ought to be continued next year and in the succeeding years, why should it be regarded as necessary to revoke the Order in Council, promote new legislation and go through the same procedure that we have gone through in the last few days? Surely that is quite unnecessary. It is because we believe it to be unnecessary that we find it difficult to accept the Amendment.
Something has been said about new legislation. I wonder what the Opposition would have said if we had not proceeded with legislation of this kind. After all, we have accepted a huge rearmament programme, involving very costly financial expenditure and the expenditure of vast resources. We are to make serious inroads into our economy. What are the implications of that decision? One of them is to proceed expeditiously with the training of men, and that is precisely what we are doing.
I venture to present another point of which hon. Members seem not to be aware. It may be that they have overlooked it. I have frequently pointed out that, as a result of the National Service Act and the provision relating to the Reserve liability, we shall have, at the end of this year and in the early months

of next year, an intake of, it may be, 130,000 National Service men. If that should be so, and provided no emergency occurs during that time, it may be unnecessary to continue the provisions of this Bill. Let it not be forgotten that, at the outset, the primary purpose of the National Service Act was to build up reserves. If we should find that we have an adequate body of trained reservists, it may be that this Bill will be unnecessary in 1952, 1953 and 1954.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Therefore, Clause 12 may be unnecessary.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that Clause 12 may be unnecessary. Precisely. On the other hand, it may be necessary.
I return to what I said at the beginning. It is precisely because of the uncertainty of the present position-frankly, we do not know what is going to happen—[Laughter.] I am surprised that hon. Members opposite should indulge in laughter at that observation. Do they know what is going to happen?

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Of course not.

Mr. Shinwell: I am very glad to hear that observation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Hon. Members opposite obviously do not know what is going to happen. Therefore, in this uncertain and abnormal situation we have done what is regarded as desirable in the circumstances, and we ask the House to give us the power to continue the legislation by Order in Council if that is regarded as necessary.
I am really surprised at some of my hon. Friends—I enjoyed the dialectic; I always do, even if it is opposed to my views—and also at many hon. Members opposite, and especially at the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale), because he is an old Member of this House, and should know. He should tell some of his younger hon. Friends that the form we now propose to adopt, and will adopt with the consent of the House, has been adopted over and over again in this House, not only by Labour Governments, but by Conservative Governments. I have taken part in such discussions myself, and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is an authority on the subject.

Mr. McCorquodale: I cannot remember when this procedure has been adopted in a completely novel Bill such as this, which the right hon. Gentleman says is an experiment.

Mr. Shinwell: The Bill is only novel because of the existing situation. [Laughter.] Yes, that is so. If it had not been for the present situation, the Bill would not have been required at all, but I would beg hon. Members to note—and I make a gift of this argument to those who are in opposition—that that is precisely what has been said by every Minister in relation to this kind of legislation. As I have said, the arguments are equally balanced. Is it better to proceed by Order in Council, or should we always invoke new legislation? I have heard Minister after Minister in Conservative Governments argue eloquently, logically, technically, constitutionally, and all the rest of it, that, in certain circumstances, it would be far better in the interest of the House and those concerned to proceed by Order in Council.
Orders in Council are of two forms. They can be of a negative character or an affirmative character. Here, we provide one of an affirmative character. What is likely to happen? If we do not find it necessary to invoke new legislation with certain amendment in the light of the changing situation, then next year we shall have to lay on the Table of both Houses the Order in Council, and there will have to be a debate. In the course of that debate, if hon. Members say that they have no opportunity of presenting Amendments and persuading the Government to make necessary changes, and if there is real substance in their case, then, sooner or later, the Government must provide amending legislation. There can be no doubt about that. Of course, it may be that a Conservative Government would not respond as readily as a Labour Government.
I would like someone to tell me this. Supposing, to use an illustration, that the right hon. Member for Epsom were in my place next year—it is not likely to happen; it is only speculation, in spite of the Gallup polls, and all the rest that one reads in certain newspapers, and, of course, the right hon. Gentleman is much too genuine to accept all that stuff—or supposing it were the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), who, I know, is very

anxious to change his geographical position——

Captain Crookshank: Not from Gainsborough.

Mr. Shinwell: I know, not from Gainsborough, but to these benches. But supposing, as I say, that he and his hon. Friends were on this side and were faced with these circumstances. I wonder what they would do? I am fairly, and, I think, reasonably sure that they would proceed in such circumstances by means of Order in Council, although I should not be at all surprised if some hon. Members of the Opposition opposed them. But I reckon that the Government would be right. It is because I believe that we are right in all these circumstances that, in spite of the arguments that have been adduced—and they have been very persuasive and at times seemed to me very logical—I hope the House will agree that we are doing the right thing. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire) rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): We have had two hours on this Amendment, and I think the House might now come to a decision.

Mr. Hughes: As you say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we have spent two hours discussing this Clause, and I have been here two hours waiting for an opportunity to begin. I would not have intervened in the debate had the Minister of Defence supplied any real arguments against the Amendment to the Clause.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member got up before me.

Mr. Hughes: I know; I have been trying to get in, and that is an additional reason. I submit that nine-tenths of the arguments adduced by the Minister might have been in order on Second or Third Reading, but that they had nothing particularly to do with the merits of this Amendment.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to say that. He is reflecting on the Chair.

Mr. Hughes: I certainly withdraw any reflection on the Chair. I approach this from an entirely different point of view from that of hon. Members opposite. I do not think this is a good Bill at all. I think it is a thoroughly bad Bill, but that it has been slightly improved in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are discussing Clause 12.

Mr. Hughes: Well, Sir. I suggest that the argument throughout the debate has been that this Bill should either operate for a year or should not operate for a year, and the alternative is an Order in Council. What I am submitting is that this was a thoroughly bad Bill when it was introduced into this House and, as a result of these deliberations and by Amendments moved, certain pressure has been put on the Government and it is now a better Bill than it was before. If that process is good in this Bill why should not the same process be repeated next year? When the Minister of Defence introduced the Bill, for example, there was a penalty of two years' imprisonment for incitement to disaffection.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot allow this. I have drawn the attention of the hon. Gentleman several times to the fact that we are talking about Clause 12. If he cannot keep to Clause 12, I must ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. You may not be aware Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because you have only just entered the Chair, that throughout the whole of this discussion, for two hours, everybody who has taken part has sought to justify the argument that the Bill should be renewed beyond this year by reference to the Committee stage we have had here and by reference to particular Clauses and particular instances and particular Amendments. In those circumstances, would it not be a little hard if my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), were out of order in doing what every participant in the debate had done?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not have the pleasure of hearing the earlier part of the debate but I have in my hand an Order Paper which indicates that the Amend-

ment before the House is to leave out Clause 12. That Clause is very narrow and I have to keep the debate to that point.

Mr. Hughes: I am dealing with Clause 12. If you ask me to sit down, Sir, I will and hon. Members can consider whether your Ruling has been fair or not.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot allow the hon. Member to say that. It is most unfair.

Mr. Hughes: I withdraw. I have a great deal of personal respect for you, Sir, and I certainly withdraw that. I want to argue the merits of Clause 12, and if you will let me develop the case I can adduce certain reasons why this Amendment should be carried. I believe that if it were carried the Government would have to come forward next year with another Bill. As a result of our experience in debating this Bill—we have already reduced a sentence of two years to four months in one Clause—and our further experience of the working of the Bill, I believe if this Amendment were carried we could improve still further the Bill that would be brought forward next year.
I suggest to my hon. Friends who have been anxious to introduce measures for fairer treatment of conscientious objectors that they would have a further opportunity if this Bill were presented year after year. Exactly the same applies to Northern Ireland. I know that certain hon. Members of this House have very grave doubts about giving certain powers to the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland. After a year's experience of the working of this Bill we would be in a better situation to judge whether another Bill should be introduced, and we would have absolutely no right to do that if there were merely a statutory order.
I do not believe that the House realises the full implications of what this Bill will mean in administrative practice. I doubt very much whether the House fully realises, for example, the extent to which, in another Bill, Clause I may have to be modified in the light of experience. I am convinced by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in this matter and I simply cannot support the Government on this Clause.

Mr. Yates: I am sorry that so much political heat has been engendered in this debate. I should have thought that this was a matter on which we might have been able to appeal without the usual party acrimony. To me this is a matter which is beyond party. In that connection may I say I felt rather sad as I listened today to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). The House knows that a few days ago he impressed us deeply when he spoke of the "inner voice." I felt some difficulty this afternoon in knowing whether or how his feeling had changed.
Some of us on this side of the House do not agree with this Clause. We find ourselves in considerable difficulty. If one does not agree with one year, then obviously one cannot agree with four or five years, and one has to consider whether or not one should take an action, over the question of one or two years, which endangers the position of the Government. It certainly places some of us in an extremely difficult position. Ever since I have been in this House I have heard argued from both sides whether or not power ought to be given to a Government by an Order in Council.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, that he knows that when Bills relating to National Service were considered in 1946 and 1947 some of us on this side argued against the power the Government were taking by Order in Council. The same applied to powers to extend the National Service Act, 1948, from 1949 to 1954. We opposed that and I spoke against it in this House. It is equally wrong to do this now. I cannot understand why, for instance, in spite of the fact that the Minister of Defence has said that conditions may change to make it unnecessary, it is yet felt absolutely necessary to include in Clause 12 not only 1952 but 1953 and 1954.
I should have thought that the Government, even if they had said they must go as far as 1952, would have left it there. I cannot quite understand why we should be asked to support the Clause in all the circumstances and why, in the uncertainty of the situation, we should be expected to agree that Part I of the Bill should apply until 1954. I appreciate the diffi-

cult situation of the Government. We all appreciate it. The Under-Secretary to the War Office spoke about experience of the Measure, but surely we had Bills relating to National Service in 1946, 1947 and 1949. Now we have this further Bill which deals with a limited form of National Service. I appeal to the Government to give some further consideration to this. Why should Part I apply for five years? I should have thought it was quite easy for the Government to come at least part of the way in this matter, and I hope they will think again.

Mr. Keenan: I apologise for taking up any more time. I do not intend to speak very long on this Amendment; the arguments for and against it have been well advanced, and I think the Government have fairly well justified their position. My reason for rising is this. We have had gibes from the Opposition who have said that the Government are not being supported by hon. Members on this side of the House. I would point out that those hon. Members on this side who have spoken in favour of this Amendment are only those who are in the new coalition which we see manifest on the Amendment. The hon. Members for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), and Ladywood (Mr. Yates), do not speak for many of us on these benches.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I say that I made no attempt to speak for anybody but myself and my constituents.

Mr. Keenan: What I said was that there have been gibes from the Opposition to the effect that the Government were not supported by hon. Members on these benches. Too often has the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne been credited with speaking for hon. Members on this side of the House. That is something which I will not stand for, and that is why I rose.
I cannot see any good reason why we should have to go all over this matter again, as we may well have to if the Amendment is carried. There is no doubt that it would simply provide another opportunity for those who do not believe that this country should have military service at all. I am not a warmonger, but hon. Members in this House, no matter what side they are on, have


a duty to see that this country is defended. That is the responsibility of Parliament, and everyone here shares in that responsibility.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 217.

Division No. 52.]
AYES
[6.13 p.m


Acland, Sir Richard
Ganley, Mrs. C S.
Morley, R.


Adams, H. R.
Gibson, C. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Albu, A. H
Gilzean, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Glanville, James (Consett)
Mort, D. L.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, A.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Greenwood. Anthony (Rossendale)
Mulley, F. W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Murray, J. D.


Awbery, S. S.
Grenfell, D. R.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Ayles, W. H.
Grey, C. F.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
O'Brien, T.


Baird, J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
Orbach, M.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Gunter, R. J.
Padley, W. E.


Bartley, P.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)


Benn, Wedgwood
Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Benson, G.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Pannell, T. C.


Beswick, F.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Parker, J.


Bevan. Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, W. W.
Paton, J.


Bing, G. H. C
Hardman, D. R
Pearson, A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hardy, E. A.
Peart, T. F.


Blyton, W. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Popplewell, E.


Boardman, H.
Harrison, J.
Porter, G.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hastings, S.
Proctor, W. T.


Bowden, H. W.
Hayman, F. H.
Rankin, J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Tipton)
Rees, Mrs. D.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Herbison, Miss M.
Reeves, J.


Brockway, A. F
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hobson, C. R.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Holman, P.
Richards, R.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvoashire)


Brown, George (Belper)
Houghton, D.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hoy, J.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Burton, Miss E
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Callaghan, L. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Royle, C.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Shackleton, E. A A.


Champion, A. J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Chetwynd, G. R
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Clunie, J.
Janner, B.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Cocks, F. S.
Jay, D. P. T.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Coldrick, W.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Simmons, C. J.


Collick, P.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Slater, J.


Collindridge, F.
Jenkins, R. H.
Snow, J. W.


Cook, T. F.
Johnson. James (Rugby)
Sorensen. R. W.


Cooper, John (Deptford)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Sparks, J. A.


Crawley, A.
Keenan, W.
Steele, T.


Crosland, C. A. R
Kenyon, C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Crossman, R. H. S
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Daines, P.
Kinley, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


de Freitas, G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)


Deer, G.
Logan, D. G.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Delargy, H. J.
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Dodds, N. N.
MacColl, J. E.
Thomas, Iorworth (Rhondda, W.)


Donnelly, D.
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Driberg, T. E N.
Mack, J. D.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thurtle, Ernest


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, F.
Timmons, J.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Edwards. W. J (Stepney)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Tomney, F.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Manuel, A. C.
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L


Ewart, R.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Usborne, H.


Fernyhough, E.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Vernon, W. F.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Viant, S. P.


Finch, H. J.
Messer, F.
Wallace, H. W.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Follick, M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, D.


Foot, M. M.
Moeran, E. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Monslow, W.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Moody, A. S.
West, D. G.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. (Edinb'gh, E.)




White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Wigg, G.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Wyatt, W. L.


Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)
Younger, Hon. K.


Wilkes, L.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)



Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Oakshott, H. D.


Alport, C. J. M.
Harvey, Air-Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Odey, G. W.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Arbuthnot, John
Harvie-Walt, Sir G. S
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon N.)


Ashton, H (Chelmsford)
Hay, John
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Assheton, Rt Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Pickthorn, K.


Baker, P. A. D.
Heald, Lionel
Pitman, I. J.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Heath, Edward
Powell, J. Enoch


Banks, Col. C.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Profumo, J. D.


Birch, Nigel
Hill, Dr Charles (Luton)
Raikes, H. V.


Bishop, F. P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Rayner, Brig. R.


Black, C. W.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Redmayne, M.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells)
Hope, Lord John
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Boothby, R.
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.
Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)


Bossom, A C.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Robson-Brown, W.


Bower, Norman
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N,.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)
Ropner, Col. L


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Russell, R. S.


Braine, B. R.
Hurd, A. R.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr, Gurney
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Savory, Prof. D. L


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Scott, Donald


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Jeffreys, General Sir George
Shepherd, William


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Jennings, R.
Smiles, Lt.-Col Sir Walter


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Johnson, Major Howard (Kemptown)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Burden, Squadron Leader F. A
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Butcher, H. W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Soames, Capt. C.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Spearman, A. C M.


Carson, Hon. E
Langford-Holt, J.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Channon, H.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Leather, E. H. C.
Stevens, G. P


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Colegate, A.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lindsay. Martin
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)
Linstead, H. N.
Studholme, H. G.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Llewellyn, D.
Summers, G. S.


Craddock, G B. (Spelthorne)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geofrey (King's Norton)
Sutcliffe, H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Teeling, W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C
Teevan, T. L.


Crouch, R. F.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)


Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)
Low, A. R. W.
Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lucas, P. B (Brentford)
Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Thorp, Brig. R. A. F


De la Bère, R.




Deedes, W. F.
McAdden, S. J.
Tilney, John


Digby, S. W.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Touche, G. C.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Turner, H. F. L.


Donner, P. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Turton, R. H.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
McKibbin, A.
Vane, W. M. F.


Drayson, G. B.
Maclay, Hon. John
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Drewe, C.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Wade, D. W.


Duthie, W. S.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Eccles D. M.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Fisher, Nigel
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Fort, R.
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Foster, John
Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)
Watkinson, H.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Maudlins R.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Mellor, Sir John
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Monckton, Sir Walter
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Wills, G.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nicholson, G.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Grimston, Robert (Westbury)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Wood, Hon. R.


Harden, J. R. E.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.



Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Nugent, G. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Nutting, Anthony
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and




Mr. Vosper


Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[ Mr. Shinwell.]

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I intervene because in the course of the Committee stage we were promised a statement about the administrative operation of the call-up, and I understood that the Parliamentary Secretary proposed to make that statement to us. If I had not risen to my feet he would not have had an opportunity to do so.
Now that I am on my feet I should like to say this—and I do not imagine that I shall have another opportunity of speaking unless it be with the leave of the House. This is quite clearly a much better Bill than it was when it was introduced. With two exceptions, every Amendment which we have pressed from this side of the House has been accepted by the Government. We are grateful to them for that. There were, of course, also one or two exploratory Amendments where we sought explanations, which we received. In consequence of the many Amendments which have been made, this is certainly a better Measure.
I cannot comment on the result of the last Division and still keep in order, but I would conclude my short observations on the Third Reading by saying that I hope the operation of the Bill will be effected with the least possible hardship to the many individuals who come within its scope and that its provisions will be effective. I hope, too, that in a year's time we shall find that the international tension is much reduced.

6.24 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Frederick Lee): As the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), has pointed out, in the discussions on the Committee stage we promised that we would try to make clear a number of points which arose on the reservation of Class Z and equivalent reservists. Indeed, there was a long debate on this question in the Committee.
I felt that the issue became somewhat confused by many references to the normal call-up of National Service men for two years' full-time service, followed by a period on the Reserve. The call-up of agricultural workers later this year

and the call-up of young men from the building industry were criticised. In fact, one of my hon. Friends had down an Amendment on that subject. All that really has nothing to do with anything in this Bill. The Bill deals solely with the recall of trained reservists for a period of training.
With regard to the recall of the Z reservists for training this year, the reservation of men has been based on the provisional arrangements which would be applied if, on the threat or outbreak of war, the recall of a substantial number of reservists became necessary. We say "provisional" because these arrangements must necessarily change as time goes on and would be much modified if two or three years were to elapse before it became necessary to apply them. It was suggested by some hon. Members that the Government have been dilatory in this matter and ought to have been busily engaged for some time in drawing up detailed reservation plans. That suggestion is not justified.
In fact, the Ministry of Labour have already drawn up a complete provisional scheme, in consultation with the Service Departments and the other Departments concerned, including, for example, the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Fuel and Power and the Ministry of Transport. This provisional scheme lays down which Class Z and equivalent reservists selected for recall to fill up the ranks of the Services in the early stages of an emergency ought to be retained for essential work in civil life. The scheme is now under examination by the two sides of industry and there may be some additions to or some removals of a few occupations in the light of the views of the various industries. But it is ready for immediate operation if a sudden emergency were to arise.
This scheme must necessarily be related to the circumstances and the priorities to be expected at the beginning of a major emergency, so far as they can be foreseen, rather than to circumstances and priorities at the present time. Moreover, as we are concerned here with trained reservists, it is not just a question of saying whether a particular civilian job is more important than service in the Forces. Regard must also be had to any qualifications and experience of special


value to the Services which the reservists may possess, particularly as a result of their previous service. For this reason, the screening instrument includes a list of the most vital Service trades which, on security grounds, it would obviously be undesirable to publish.
On the question of publication, we are not insensible to the advantages of letting men know where they stand, but it is of very doubtful utility to issue to the public a document saying how individuals would stand if there were a war next week when, in fact, nobody expects a war next week. It is really not possible to tell them how they would stand if a war came in two or three years' time.
There would be little point in recalling reservists for training this summer unless they were likely to be available in an emergency, and call-up for training this summer is, therefore, prima facie, an indication of availability for recall in an early emergency. But this would not be true in every case. A man's position might have changed in the meantime as a result of changes, first, in the requirements of the Services; secondly, in the job for which he was earmarked on recall; or, thirdly, in his employment or normal occupation. In particular, the need of the Services to recall Class Z and equivalent reservists in an emergency will be gradually reduced as the Reserves are built up by National Service men performing their part-time service.
As time goes on, therefore, the degree of probability that men recalled for training this summer would be recalled in an emergency naturally grows less. It is impossible to make an instrument of this character so fine that it will, without fail, ensure the best allocation in the national interest in an emergency of every individual reservist.

Mr. Speaker: On Third Reading we are confined to what is in the Bill and we cannot discuss anything outside the Bill. The hon. Gentleman seems to be dealing with some sort of regulations which may be issued in the future, and that is not within the Bill.

Mr. Lee: In the course of the Committee stage there was considerable confusion as to how Class Z and other reservists were to be dealt with, what was the basis of the recall and so on. At that stage we promised a statement in which

we would endeavour to make the point clear. That is what I am trying to do now. We should provide machinery for the consideration——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. The statement which the Parliamentary Secretary is making, whether in order or not, is of very great interest, and I would ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether those of us who have the good fortune to catch your eye in the debate on Third Reading will be allowed to refer to these matters.

Mr. Speaker: That is exactly the trouble, and the reason for my intervention. If we were to debate these matters we should have a wide debate equivalent to a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Lee: May I continue? We should provide machinery for the consideration —[Laughter.] Well, I am trying to oblige the House by giving information for which I have been asked. We should provide machinery for the consideration, at the time, of applications for deferment of recall or release from recall in exceptional cases, but there would be no point in trying to settle these individual cases now; many of the circumstances may have changed entirely between now and an emergency, if one should come. The right time to do this is when there seems some likelihood of an early recall of reservists for service as distinct from training.
All that relates to plans for an emergency. They give the background against which we may consider the distinct question of the recall of a maximum of 245,000 of these reservists for training this summer. These represent not much more than 1 per cent. of the total of over 15 million males in civilian employment. They are being recalled for periods of a fortnight each, spread over——

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: On a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are listening with very considerable difficulty to a very elaborate statement containing, so far as I can see, many new facts which we ought to consider 'before we can adequately debate them. I think they are of the greatest possible importance, and I suggest that this is putting us in all parts of the House in a very difficult position.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: This is, so far as I can gather—for it is very difficult to hear—a statement on the whole question of reserved occupations, which is a thing which we on this side of the House and I particularly have been asking for for a very long time. Whether or not we are now able to debate it, I suggest that we should be allowed to read this statement and consider it in detail before there is any question of debating it, and that we should have a much longer time for debating it than we can possibly have now in the circumstances.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Would I be in order in suggesting that the Minister deal with this in a White Paper, so that it can be properly considered, and, if necessary, debated at an appropriate opportunity?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot deal with the matter any further. I have said what I have said, and that is all I can do.

Mr. Lee: I think I have made the position quite clear. It was our hope, arising from doubts expressed when we had the Committee stage, that we could clear up quite a number of points which, apparently, were not then very clear, so that hon. Gentlemen, and all those who are concerned in the recall, should know precisely the basis upon which the recall is to be made. It was for that reason that we chose to make this statement at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Sidney Marshall: The statement is not clear.

Mr. Lee: If I am allowed to make it, then possibly, in the course of time, the hon. Gentleman will consider it, and will understand what it is all about.
The right time to do this is when there seems some likelihood of an early recall of reservists for service as distinct from training. All that relates to plans for an emergency. They give the background against which we may consider the distinct question of the recall of a maximum of 245,000 of these reservists for training this summer. These represent not more than 1 per cent. of the total of over 15 million males in civilian employment. They are being recalled for a period of a fortnight each, spread over at least five

months, of which long notice will be given.
The impact of this on any particular employer must, on the average, be very small, and the long notice should, in general, make it possible for any necessary adjustments to be made. It is for these reasons that the Quiz says correctly that appeals from employers against the recall of individual men for this short period of training will not be entertained. We do, however, recognise that there may be difficulties where it happens that a lot of key men from a particular employer are all due to go for training at the same time. This is a matter of adjustment of timing of training, which can only be dealt with by the Service Departments. For this class of case, the Quiz states, again correctly, that the Service Departments will do their best to meet exceptional circumstances if applications are made to addresses which are given. The making of these adjustments will not be easy, and it is very much hoped that employers will do their best to overcome the difficulties by making adjustments themselves.
With regard to the possibility of agricultural workers being recalled for 15 days' training, there can be very few agricultural workers in the Class Z Reserve. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In so far as there are, they have not been selected for recall for training except under the terms of the screening arrangements which were drawn up in consultation with the Agricultural Departments. If in any case the recall for 15 days creates special difficulty owing to agricultural operations, this can be brought to the notice of the appropriate Service Department.
Lastly, as regards the men, other than Class Z and Class G reservists, made liable for recall under the Bill, there can, of course, be no question of limiting the freedom of the Services to recall Regular reservists. As regards the officers and men from the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve—3,500 at most, including 200 at most for 18 months—who are required for periods of three months or 18 months, the Air Ministry hope to get most of these men as volunteers, and in these cases, no difficulty should arise. So far as it may prove necessary to call up any of these men for these longer periods, the Air Ministry is prepared to consider any representations from their employers that they cannot spare them, and will, unless


they are prepared to accede to them straight away, ask for the advice of my Department.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman was pressed on the Committee stage by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) and me to make a statement, as I said, either before or upon the Report stage, showing how the call-up was going to operate, and he said in Committee that there was no reason why he should not give an undertaking that later on, when he had the information fully before him, he would arrange for some statement to be made on the Floor of the House. Paying what attention I could to the very long and full statement the hon. Gentleman has made, I venture to assert that no one in this House can have comprehended its significance at the present time.
It is obviously a statement of very great importance. Whether it should have been made on the Third Reading of this Bill or at another opportunity is not for me to say, but it obviously—[An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. and learned Gentleman asked for it."] I asked for it and received it—and received a great deal more than was expected. However, we are obviously not in a position to express any view on this statement at the present time, and it is indeed difficult to debate a statement like this, which could, after all, perhaps, have been published in a White Paper. That would have given us a certain amount of opportunity of considering it; and we shall certainly want an opportunity of considering it before expressing any final view upon it.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: I want to raise certain matters which were discussed on the Committee stage, and they refer particularly to the treatment of conscientious objectors. I appreciate that the number of such objectors will be small, but I know that it is the desire in all parts of the House that genuine conscientious objection should be met. I think it likely that the number among the Class Z reservists may actually be larger than among the men who are called to National Service, first on the ground that, although they have served in the Army, they are older men, and therefore have had greater opportunity to consider the matter, and secondly, on the ground that their old

war experiences have led them, during the last six years, to consider deeply what their attitude should be.
I can only state from my own experience that when the other day I was asked to meet some Class Z reservists upon this matter, I expected that there would be 40 or 50 of them, but instead there were 500 of them. I appreciate that there is the possibility, as always occurs after a war, that the basis of objection may be resentment rather than a real sense of right and wrong. When I have met these men, I have urged that they should not make the claim of conscientious objection unless it is based upon a deep conviction of personality. I should like to read a quotation from what I said on the occasion to which I have referred:
A man will do himself great harm unless there is some compelling motive within him that makes him believe it would be wrong to do anything else. Men who have started on the course without a deep conviction and who have not been able to follow the course to its end have suffered mentally and physically in a sense of defeat for the rest of their lives. After a war there is always among ex-Service men a growth of feeling against militarism, but try to think clearly what dominating motive has led you to your decision. You must be able to say to yourselves: 'I think it would be wrong for me as a personality to undertake military service.'".
I am thinking of those men when I again plead the case that they should not be punished more than once for what is essentially one offence.
During the discussion on this in Committee, sympathy was expressed with that point of view from all sides, and I am perfectly sure that that sympathy is shared on the Government Front Bench. The case expressed on the Front Bench was that it would be difficult to give it legislative or administrative expression. In view of those difficulties, and without in any way withdrawing the case I have urged that a man should not be punished twice for what is essentially one offence, I want to make another proposal to the Government, which I believe will receive support from all sides of the House. Indeed, it was expressed from the Opposition benches by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage) on the Committee stage.
My proposal is that a man should not be punished a second time without having an opportunity to go before the tribunal again. That principle is accepted in the present National


Service Acts. If a man in the Army is sentenced to three months' imprisonment, he may go back to the tribunal——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is now arguing something which is not in the Bill. I am afraid he must confine himself to what is in the Bill. Matters outside it are not in order on Third Reading.

Mr. Brockway: I was using this only as an illustration. I was suggesting that the members of courts-martial would much prefer to treat a case before them on its merits than on an instruction that because the man is a conscientious objector he must have a three months' sentence before going back to the tribunal. My proposal is that the responsibility must be laid upon the tribunal of deciding whether such a man is a conscientious objector, and after he has undergone his punishment he should have the opportunity of returning to the tribunal.
I admit that there is one serious difficulty in this proposal, and that is in regard to the man who refuses medical examination before reaching the training camp at all. I hope it will be possible for the Government to consider whether that difficulty cannot be met administratively. I believe that all sides of the House would welcome a proposal dealing with this problem, whereby in future no man will be punished a second time for what is essentially one offence without having the opportunity to go back to the tribunal and there justify the claim of conscience which he raises.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I cannot say that I welcome this Bill, or that I am convinced that it is any real contribution to the defence of this country, but it has certainly been improved on the Committee and Report stages. I am particularly glad that the Government have accepted the Liberal Amendment designed to reduce the punishments provided in Clause 6, which deals with incitement to disobey. Those punishments are now reduced to the level of those in the 1934 Act.
I will not attempt to follow the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, even if

I were in order in doing so. He read it so quickly that I could not take it all in. The other day in the House there were some objections taken to the amount of Ministerial statements made at the end of Questions, and I wondered whether the Parliamentary Secretary had sought to find a way round that by making such a statement on Third Reading.
The point I wish to make primarily is that I hope great care will be taken in selecting men for call-up. There are two letters today in the "Manchester Guardian" from men who have been called up. One spent the whole of the war with the field artillery and at the end of his service spent a fortnight with the anti-aircraft. He has now been called up, presumably as a key man, to an antiaircraft unit. The other was released under Class B because he was wanted for important civilian work at the end of the war, and he is now manager of a textile factory. He has been called up. If those illustrations are true, and if that kind of thing is to be continued, we cannot have any confidence that this Measure will contribute to a more effective Fighting Service.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Bing: I shall detain the House for only a few moments to call attention to an important constitutional principle contained in this Bill, which possibly will have the unanimous approval of all my hon. Friends on the back benches, and which I think represents a very welcome change of view by my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench.
Hitherto it has been the invariable custom of this Government never to legislate in any matters concerning police or law and order in Northern Ireland. We on this side of the House welcome this departure from that point of view contained in Clause 6. It is a most valuable assertion of right. Of course, from the point of view of legislation it is entirely useless, because it is a provision intended to provide for trial and imprisonment after trial, and there already exists—it is quite unnecessary for me to go through all the various provisions with which the House will be well aware—every necessary provision for imprisoning anyone without trial in Northern Ireland, and as the Attorney-General already possesses


those powers it is quite unnecessary to legislate on this subject.
The only other reason why the Clause could have been included is that there was a reference to Northern Ireland in the Incitement to Disaffection Act, but that was, as is now generally realised, I think, due to a mistaken view of the law taken by the then legal officers of the Conservative Administration. I am glad to see the right hon. and learned Member for Bristol, West (Sir W. Monckton) sitting, surprisingly enough, on the Opposition back benches. I am quite certain that as soon as he is promoted, no such error will occur again.
May I for one moment deal with Clause 6 to show how this matter runs. In Committee, when discussing subsection (2), for example, it was said by the Attorney-General:
The mere possession of such books on ethics, philosophy and such like matters as those to which he referred, would, in my view, never constitute an offence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 2464–5.]
How unnecessary it is, therefore, to enact such a Clause in relation to Northern Ireland because already the possession of ethical books constitutes a very serious offence in Northern Ireland. An unhappy man who possessed a copy of Plato's "Republic" was raided by the police and the copy carried off on the grounds that in Northern Ireland one should not have copies of anyone's Republic.
In exactly the same way an article in the "Capuchin Annual" accompanied by a criticism from the editor of the "Catholic Herald" was banned, and people were subject to 14 years' imprisonment for possessing it. Subsection (2), therefore, is not necessary so far as Northern Ireland is concerned. I seek on this point to show how the Government assert this question of principle by enforcing a large number of Clauses which are unnecessary. Subsection (3) states:
If a judge of the High Court is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under this section has been committed …he may …grant a search warrant.
That subsection is unnecessary because in Northern Ireland the premises of anyone can be raided without any rules at all. Then no provision is necessary for the destruction or saving of documents. In Northern Ireland, under the Civil Author-

ities (Special Powers) Acts, all these can be destroyed.
When one comes to subsection (6), in respect of which hon. Members on all sides of the House took a great deal of trouble to secure amendment, one finds the penalties for conviction on indictment are those which in Northern Ireland can be administered under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act on summary conviction. Hon. Members thought that two years was a quite long enough sentence on indictment. For the same offence in Northern Ireland one can be prosecuted under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act and can get 14 years. So that that limitation, too, is quite unnecessary.
I do not think that I need detain the House longer, except to deal with one further point in order to show how generous the Government have been in extending these provisions. When one is dealing in Northern Ireland with any criminal matter, the law provides that any person can be convicted of anything, even if it is not against the law. This arrangement is contained in a most ingenious provision which was subsequently copied by Hitler but has been since repealed under our administration in Germany. Section 2 (4) of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act provides:
If any person does any act of such a nature as to be calculated to be prejudicial to the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order in Northern Ireland, and not specifically provided for in the regulations"—
that is to say, not included in the regulations made under the Act, nevertheless
he shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence against the regulations.
There is, therefore, no point in applying Clause 6 to Northern Ireland except for one purpose, and that is the assertion of the right of this House to legislate for peace and order in Northern Ireland. I welcome this change of view on the part of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but I hope that when this is next exercised it will be to reduce and not to increase the powers of the authorities there.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. William Wells: I should like to make a few short observations on Clause 6. The principal criticism which I wish to make is in relation to subsection (3), relating to the power of search. I


only wish to express the view that, while I well understand the argument which the Attorney-General put forward that in this matter it is necessary to follow the precedent of the Incitement to Disaffection Act, 1934, nevertheless the fact remains that under the Clause as drafted a search warrant may be issued to allow the police to carry out a general roving search among documents as a result of which the parties concerned may be prosecuted for an offence quite different from that which the police originally intended in the charge.
I think that the precedent of the 1934 Act was a thoroughly bad one, and that view was shared by the whole of the Labour Party at the time, the Liberal Party at the time and even by many hon. Members of the Conservative Party at the time. Although I entirely welcome the fact that the Government are taking precautions against Communist elements wrecking this Measure, I regret that it has been necessary to apply this particular precedent, and I suggest that in the near future a complete review of the powers of search should be made to limit them to what is more reasonable, more modest and more consonant with the traditional rights of the Englishman to have proper protection.

6.56 p.m.

Lieut-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) led me to believe that he was making an attack upon the Government or upon some laws in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, I have not the legal knowledge of the hon. and learned Gentleman. All I know about this Bill is that under Clause 6 (11) no prosecution shall take place in Northern Ireland without the consent of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. It seems to me quite a reasonable thing that the Attorney-General should protect Northern Ireland citizens from an unjust prosecution. Under subsection (11, b,) we see that
for the reference to the Attorney-General there shall be substituted a reference to the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Bing: Perhaps I may make the point clear to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is that these powers, in my submission, already exist in Northern Ireland, and therefore we need not enact

any other legislation in regard to Northern Ireland, except to assert our right so to do. It is purely formal.

Sir W. Smiles: It may be purely formal, and I am sure that hon. and learned Members on this side of the House understand very well what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. All I know is that, speaking for the people of Northern Ireland, I can say that if there should come another war we shall be by the side of those in this country.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I will not venture across to Northern Ireland, except to say that I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), on the Committee stage and during the course of this debate, had stated what is called a prima facie case against the bona fides of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. My knowledge of this is confined to the incident——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must discuss the office and not the conduct of the individual who holds that office.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for anyone to suggest in this House that the bona fides of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland do not exist; in other words, that he is not to be trusted? Surely that must be out of order.

Mr. Speaker: An hon. Member must not discuss individuals who hold that office. It is the office we are discussing and not the individuals who hold it.

Mr. Hughes: I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch had produced a prima facie case, but if my reference to that is out of order, I withdraw it. I only mentioned the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland because certain powers are given to the Attorney-General under Clause 6. I have been convinced that no further powers should be given to the Attorney-General because of the arguments which have been adduced by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch. I object to this Bill mainly because it gives compulsory powers to call up Class Z men. I believe that the call-up should be purely voluntary, I do not believe there is any demand in the country for the Bill, I believe that if it were purely voluntary, the result of the call-up would be that the


Government would realise there is no mandate for the military measures that are proposed.
As to Clause 6, I want to object to it only so far as it affects Scotland. If Clause 6 is operated and the powers are used to charge people with incitement to disaffection, I believe the result will be that we shall cause more disaffection than if the prosecutions had never taken place. There is abundant evidence in the history of Scotland to show that such trials are ineffective and result only in increasing any disaffection that may exist. The Minister of Labour said in a recent debate that we must not look for Communists under the bed. I entirely agree, but in this Bill we seem to be giving attention to Communists inside the bed.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Stewart: Important as this Bill is, we have now discussed it very fully indeed and I propose therefore to comment only briefly on the points that have just been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) raised again the question of prosecutions of conscientious objectors more than once. I am not sure whether he has fully grasped the fact that if a man is served with a call-up notice and fails to comply, he can go to a tribunal and then to an appellate tribunal, and that only after both have turned him down and decided that his objection is not genuine can he then commit the offence of failing to obey the notice. If he then does so, he is prosecuted. No question of a second prosecution should arise, unless after that a further call-up notice is served. If another notice is served, he can again go before both the tribunal and the appellate tribunal.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: I appreciate that very much, and I regard it as a very considerable administrative concession. But the difficulty still remains of the man who refuses medical examination before he has been called to the camp. I am asking that the same principle shall be applied to him as in the case of the other man.

Mr. Stewart: What I have just said is not an administrative concession but the law. A man cannot be punished legally more than once for the same offence. To disobey the second notice is, of course, a separate offence. As to the man who

refuses medical examination, I can tell the House, on the authority of the Minister of Defence, that while we cannot give any definite commitment on this matter, it is our earnest desire to avoid using the machinery of the law unreasonably to prosecute individuals. We shall try consistent with our duty to the law and to the defence of the country, to avoid the kind of prosecutions which I think my hon. Friend has in mind.
I think that I ought to say this on the whole issue of conscientious objection. There are Members who hold the views of conscientious objectors, and there are those who do not share those views but respect their sincerity. We ask that in return they should similarly respect the sincerity of those who disagree with them. Some of us also hold very strongly that conscientious objections to military service of all kinds can be a very grave danger to the safety and welfare of the country. We must ask those who disagree with that opinion to believe that it is at any rate honestly held.
Furthermore, as a decent and civilised community we try to make proper arrangements for those who have a conscientious objection to military service. It behoves a decent civilised community to do that. Surely, then, there is some obligation on the men who hold conscientious objections to try to cooperate with the community in the administration of the provisions that the community makes for their liberty of conscience. I trust that those who make use of the provisions made for conscientious objectors will realise that there is the same duty on them not to be unreasonably awkward, but to try to recognise that the community is trying to treat them fairly and that they have some duty to the community in return. I am sure that this will be the view the overwhelming majority will take.
Further references were made to Clause 6, but I think that it will now be agreed that the Attorney-General gave the most careful consideration to all the criticisms that were made, and that if he was unable to accede to all the suggestions it was only because he was convinced, after the most careful examination, that had they been accepted they would have made the administration of the law well-nigh impossible. My hon. and learned Friend


the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) will forgive me if I do not pursue the particular line of argument that he introduced into this debate. The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) quoted one or two examples of what appeared to be unreasonable or foolish call-ups. I would say this to him and to other Members interested in this aspect.
There are some cases of call-up that at first glance do not appear to be reasonable, but on a little further examination it will be found that good reasons will appear. One of the possible assumptions of this call-up is that we may be faced with a very grave international situation in the very near future. If we were, it could not possibly be claimed that every man in the Forces would find himself doing exactly the same job as last time. Men would have in many cases to do a job in some degrees related to or connected with what they were doing.
It is not too much to ask an experienced man of good general intelligence to adapt himself quickly to a job related at any rate to that which he was doing last time, even if it is not the same job. That has to be borne in mind before we say of a particular man called up that it does not make sense. I stress that because of cases that have been brought to my attention, cases which on first sight seemed unreasonable but which made sense after a little consideration had been given to them.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I appreciate the force of that argument. Would it not be possible in these circumstances to explain personally to each man whose call-up seemed unreasonable why he had been called up?

Mr. Stewart: I sincerely hope that not too many men will ask for a personal explanation. I am sure that the hon. Member will be able to draw on his own knowledge to help his constituents more readily to understand why they have been called up.
We all believe that the purpose and, indeed, the effect of the Bill is to make any worsening of the international situation much less likely. I believe that in all quarters we are convinced that the counsel this country can give in the affairs of mankind will be as good and as

wise as can be given by any other nation, and that it is important that behind that counsel, giving weight to it, there should be the knowledge throughout the world that in extremity this country has both the will and the ability to defend itself and make good its word. This Bill is one of the Measures, although it is only one, to that end. It is with that in mind that I commend it to the House.

7.10 p.m.

Professor Savory: The hon. and learned Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) seems to have made a totally irrelevant speech and introduced a large amount of matters which have nothing to do with the Bill whatever. On this occasion he seems to have made the speech he intended to make on Friday had he been called.

Mr. Speaker: I allowed the hon. and learned Member to speak, and therefore the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Professor Savory) must not say that what he said was irrelevant, because that is a slight on me.

Professor Savory: All I can say is had the hon. and learned Gentleman been called on Friday I was perfectly prepared to answer all those questions which he raised. It seems to me to be an abuse of the privileges of this House to tack on to a harmless subsection such as we have here, which is in the only relevant Clause in the Bill referring to Northern Ireland, the attack which he did. The subsection reads as follows:
No prosecution in Northern Ireland under this section shall take place without the consent of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.
In England and Wales it is the Attorney-General who is the authority in these matters, while provision is made to cover Scotland. It is obvious that the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland is the proper person to be the agent under this Bill. Any attack upon the personality of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland whom I have known for 20 years, I most bitterly resent. When he acts in his capacity as Attorney-General he acts in a judicial capacity, and nobody could be more fair and more impartial, as I have observed during the many years that I have resided in Belfast. Therefore, I protest most emphatically against the introduction of this attack on a Clause like this, which is absolutely innocuous, and


I feel sure that I have with me in this very strong opinion the support of all hon. Members of this House.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 28th February.]

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 4.—(PROVISIONS AS TO THE QUEENSLAND CORPORATION.)

7.12 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, to leave out subsection (2).

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed together this Amendment and the one that follows—in page 3, line 32, at end, insert:
Provided that such advances shall not exceed in the aggregate two hundred thousand pounds in any financial year.

Captain Crookshank: That would be very convenient, but I presume that they will be put separately so that we can divide if necessary. The purpose which we have in mind in regard to this Amendment——

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): I think it should be clear that we are discussing the two Amendments together.

Captain Crookshank: That is so. The point of putting down the Amendment to leave out subsection (2) was to get from the Minister what his financial plans are for the Queensland experiment. The second Amendment seeks to limit the amount of such advances, but we have fixed the haphazard figure of £200,000 because we have no material on which to estimate what would be the right figure.
I might at this stage refer to the accounts for last year, ending 31st March, 1950, because in the first year of the experiment the advances made by the Overseas Food Corporation were £147,000. I take it that in the second year they will have been over £1 million, because it is shown under liabilities at the

31st March, 1950, that there is a sum of £1,239,000 due to the Overseas Food Corporation. Therefore, roughly speaking, it is £1,100,000 for the second year. Obviously, those two figures bear no relationship to the future.
7.15 p.m.
In the first year the scheme had not got very much under way and in the second year possibly they had to purchase a great number of properties scattered over this area of Queensland. I imagine that, for the time being at any rate, they have probably bought as much as they want, because they have now got to attend to stocking, and so on. It would be desirable before we pass this Clause if we could be told something about the future of the scheme and we think that this is an appropriate Amendment when we might discuss it, together with the finances. We hope it will be within the Rules of Order for the Minister to make some statement about what the Government intend shall happen in Queensland. I might add that if it is considered more suitable to have this discussion on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill, it makes no difference to us, but if we were to have a general discussion on the Queensland scheme, it would, I think, be helpful to most Members, whether they are in the Committee or not.
Under the original Act powers to expand food production were given to the Minister, but this Queensland experiment is the only one in which any attempt is being made now and, owing to the fact that it is in a Dominion, obviously it has had to be dealt with differently from what was done in any Crown Colony. We have this arrangement made under legislation not of this House but of another Legislature. It is a very interesting constitutional issue, but I do not think we need dilate upon that.
What we in this House have to consider is the fact that we are voting money annually to a Corporation established under an Act of Parliament of another Legislature, over which, as such, the House has no control. Any control that the House is to keep will be on the Minister when his Estimates come before us. I dare say that when the time comes to consider them, the Public Accounts Committee may have some comments to make, because it may well be that there will be some accounting difficulties—not


that we want to make any. I hope that no one in Queensland or anywhere else thinks that we do, but when we start novel constitutional practices we have to think round the problem to see how it develops. I shall be grateful to the Minister if he will explain to us anything that he can on that subject.
It might be as well if some limiting figure were put in. We had the idea of doing that on an earlier Clause, but we did not move that particular Amendment. I think that possibly in both cases it would be well if the Statute set the maximum. Whether £200,000 is the right maximum depends entirely upon what the right hon. Gentleman envisages as the future of this scheme, and that is why we put the Amendment in this form. If possible, we can insert a more appropriate figure during the later stages of the Bill. Obviously we do not want to put in something which is out of scale. Already we have spent £1¼ million. We should not be bemused into thinking that because we are writing off £36½ million under an earlier Clause, that £1¼ million is just nothing. It is quite a lot of money, and it has to be found by the taxpayer.
Having already put down that amount presumably for capital work, it may be that not very much more will be required, because one hopes that there will be trading profits sooner or later out of this venture, though these schemes always seem to run up against difficulties. There have been climatic difficulties hitherto, and it seems very strange that where we want rain there are droughts and where we want dry weather we have rain. Nothing seems to go really right for us either in Queensland or in Africa. In recent reports we have read of disastrous heavy frosts and all sorts of things which had not happened hitherto for many years past.
This is the first time we have had an opportunity of reviewing this matter and of being told what the financial commitments are likely to be. We are proposing to delete the subsection, but that is only a device in order to get a debate. We naturally want the scheme to go on, and if it is to go on after the virtual disappearance of the Overseas Food Corporation I cannot see any other way of financing it. I think the proportion that has been mentioned is three parts of ours to

one of theirs, which is a very considerable proportion. If that is to be done, and has been agreed upon, it seems to me that the Minister of Food doing it as a result of annual Votes is probably the right answer.
The right hon. Gentleman need not worry because we are seeking to take out this subsection, provided that he gives us a reasonably satisfactory answer to the questions which my hon. Friends will no doubt want to put to him. We should like him to deal with the point whether in the long run it would not help him or his successors, as the case may be—as the case will be, I ought to say—to have a maximum annual figure in the Bill. I should like to hear his views on that point.
Will he tell us how far he thinks this scheme will develop, how much money it will cost in the long run and whether he thinks it is really a good scheme? Does he think it is wise that we should annually pump money in for the kind of expenditure which has already been outlined in the annual report for 1950 rather than, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) will probably be telling us, spending it, or even making grants to the appropriate bodies, for such things as railways and roads, and not going in for the farming and trading side of the business? It is in order to start that discussion, and no more at this stage, reserving all the rights we feel must be reserved for later on, and to find out what is in the mind of the Government, that I am moving this Amendment.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): If it is the desire of the Committee that I should intervene now, I am very happy to do so, without of course forgoing my right to reply later, if that should be necessary. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has introduced this discussion in a very fair way and I am glad to be able to give rather a wider amount of information on this very important scheme, which, as he rightly said, has been rather in the background. It would have been to our common advantage on both sides of the House of Commons if we had had more frequent opportunities to examine the scheme. At least we have an opportunity tonight. It is important that we can debate it in an atmosphere of calm, without undue party differences. In the


course of what I have to say I hope to be able to give information which will satisfy hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the Committee that what we propose to do is a wise and proper thing.
It is essential, now that the Overseas Food Corporation is to go to the Colonial Office, that we should make this change. It would be improper on all sorts of grounds to control an institution in a Dominion through the Colonial Office. Quite apart from the Dominion's own ideas on that point, there would be complexities of administration, but the more decisive reason would be that they themselves would not feel it proper to have their affairs under the control of the Colonial Office. It is for those reasons that we make the change.
As to the scheme itself, since you have ruled, Major Milner, that we can discuss it rather widely and as I was asked some questions by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I think I can satisfy hon. Members, after a very exhaustive examination, that the scheme is well founded. It is still a promising scheme and financially sound in every respect. It has not yet made a trading profit, but certainly it shows every prospect of doing it. Even the most prudent—incidentally, I use the word "prudent" although I was corrected for using it in another connection, but I still use it in this connection—estimate of the resources of this scheme shows that it is well founded and well established and is likely to go forward to satisfactory results.
I recently saw the chairman, who came back to visit me, and I discussed with him the finances of the scheme. Although I cannot anticipate the report which will be laid before the House in due course according to the requirements of the statute under which the scheme is operated, I can tell the Committee that the chairman was able to give me an assurance that the capital resources of the scheme have been assessed in accordance with normal commercial practice and in a most cautious and careful way, and that even on that estimate it is quite clear that the scheme has more than enough in hand to meet any emergency that might come along. Certainly its capital assets are more than adequate to cover any liabilities that might arise. By every

kind of test that can be made, it is clear that the scheme is well founded.
The question arises, what would be the best way to administer it in these new conditions? I discussed this in great detail with the- Prime Minister of Queensland, Mr. Hanlon, and he was very anxious that our association should continue. He preferred that the United Kingdom should have links with Queensland in this operation, and indeed in other operations. As I think I suggested in my speech on the Second Reading, I hinted that it might be desirable, if they should want to take over the scheme, for them to administer it themselves. The Prime Minister did not think so, not because he did not think that the scheme was well founded. On the contrary, he knew that it was well founded and full of promise. He felt that it was a scheme that presented an admirable opportunity for that kind of economic link between the Dominions and the mother country that was full of all sorts in interesting possibilities. In the end I agreed with him that it was better in the long run and to our mutual advantage to have this kind of association.
Therefore we have made this proposal, that the Minister of Food, whoever he is—it may be the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough some day, or some other hon. Member. I am glad to see that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman shrinks from that fate, which only confirms what I have long since felt about him that he is a man of great wisdom. It may be some unfortunate individual sitting in this House or even sitting outside it. I cannot think that anybody who has been a Member of this House in recent years would want that fate. That individual will be directly responsible to the House for the administration of this scheme. We should be clear what that means.
7.30 p.m.
Future expenditure will be on an annual Vote in this House. That means that the House of Commons can scrutinize that expenditure and that all the machinery of scrutiny and check will be available at every stage. In addition I should hope that the House would feel at liberty to question me as freely as possible on the operations of the scheme. I am not sure how far one can commit a successor—I do not know what the constitutional proprieties are—but in so far as I am responsible


for the administration of the scheme, the change having taken place and there being a direct responsibility for the scheme in that the Vote will come annually before the House, I should hope that the House would feel free to put down the widest range of questions to the Minister who is responsible.
If they involve matters of detail there might be some delay because the administrators of the scheme will now be in Australia and not in London, but, broadly speaking, my approach to this is that so far as I am responsible for administration I should want to answer all questions. I should also want to improve the supply of information about the scheme. I gather that there is some dissatisfaction about the amount of information which has been given and I should hope, immediately after we began the new dispensation, to discuss with the new Board of the Corporation ways and means of improving the amount of factual information about the scheme.
I now want to come to the Amendments, because I believe that in dealing with them I shall deal with some of the points of detail raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough. The effect of the first Amendment would be to withdraw the power of the Ministry of Food to make further advances to the Queensland Corporation. So far £1,500,000 has been advanced by the Overseas Corporation to the Queensland Corporation out of the Consolidated Fund. That was for the ordinary purpose of founding the scheme. The reports available to the House already and the reports that will be available to the House in due course will show that that amount of money has been prudently spent and is more than covered by the available and potentially available assets in Queensland.
The point I want to make clear to the House—this is the real answer to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—is that there is no intention of exercising the power to make further advances for at least two years; that is, up to the end of 1952. It is quite clear that the Corporation can proceed to fulfil all its immediate obligations and carry out its programme for the next two years on the resources that are now available to it. I want to state quite categorically

to the Committee that there is no intention of asking the House to exercise the power—after 31st March we must ask the House for authority to exercise the power—to make further advances for at least two years.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman wanted to fix a target. I should have thought that it would be better to see how we got on in the first or the second year before fixing a target. Whoever is responsible for the administration of the scheme after the change-over, I should have thought that if in the end the House wanted to fix a target he would have preferred to come to the House in the light of experience, bearing in mind that no money can be voted for the scheme without the approval of the House. As I have said, there is no intention of exercising that power for at least two years Our experience during those two years will determine whether it is desirable to let the Corporation have fresh capital.
If it is desired to make further advances, the Minister of Food of the day will have to ask Parliament to provide the money under Clause 4 (4). Surely that will give Parliament sufficient safeguard against money being advanced against its wish? An estimate will appear on the Ministry of Food Vote and will be subject to all the processes of scrutiny. I should have thought that it would be a mistake at this stage to fix a figure. I can understand the reason for fixing a ceiling on the amount of the advances—anyone as anxious as I am to get these things straight can see the attractiveness of that—but I have given an assurance that for two years at least it is not intended to make any advance at all, and, as in that time more facts will be available to the House, I should have thought that it would be better to use the two years to find out where we stand and how the scheme goes. If at the end of that time or in the process of that time we find that it is prudent to have a ceiling, then we can have a ceiling and fix it in the light of our experience.
With a development scheme of this kind it is impossible to see further ahead than two years in any detail, but in case it is felt desirable to make further advances to the Queensland Corporation later on, surely it is preferable to make provision for the Minister to be in a position to


do so, rather than to have to introduce further amending legislation in two years time? The provision is there, and I have tried to give assurances about the way in which it will be treated by us. Surely it is rather a waste of Parliament's time not to retain the provision and instead to use the time of Parliament two years hence in bringing in a provision which might or might not be necessary at that time? Surely it is better to take the powers now than to bring in a separate Bill later.
I believe I have covered the point raised by the second Amendment, but, if I have not, I will try later to give any further information that the Committee may desire. Let us at least look at the matter on the basis that I have tried to put before the Committee. It is simply that here we have a scheme which by every test—I believe that will be confirmed although there will be criticisms in detail by people who have seen it—is shown to be of immense promise, quite well-founded and full of great possibilities for the advancement of not only our own interests but the interests of our people in the Dominions. Its finances are quite well established, and the provisions which we are now proposing to take are quite proper and well within the command of the Committee. I hope that, on that basis, the Committee will be prepared to let us proceed.

Mr. Hurd: The Minister has given us a very reasonable exposition of his side of the case and the feelings he has about the desirability of carrying on this partnership with the Queensland Government in this sorghum-pig-cattle enterprise. I am still left with an unanswered question in my mind. What are we doing farming 700,000 acres in Queensland with the British taxpayers' money? It is all right so far because we have had two good rainy seasons and there is plenty of grass and we have been lucky. There have been losses from cockatoos and mice, which I believe are risks in farming in Queensland, but we have, on the whole, been reasonably lucky. We may run into much harder times and may experience droughts, which Queensland often gets, and then we may be faced with some kind of disaster such as we have on our plate in Tanganyika and in the Gambia at the moment.
I am not at all happy that the Committee should encourage the Minister to continue the experiment. Fortunately for us and our money, it is being run by a very good team out in Queensland. Mr. Kemp, the deputy-chairman of the Corporation, is a first-rate man, and as long as he is able to take charge I shall not have any great fear. Mr. McEwen, the farm manager, Mr. Bond, in charge of the machinery, and Mr. Saxelby with the pigs, are also very good men. But what are we doing investing the British taxpayers' money in Queensland in this manner? This is very useful land which was largely sheep grazing in the past. We have cattle there now and are also growing sorghum. But other people were growing sorghum there before we came on the spot, and more people are growing sorghum in that area now.
If we wanted to show them that sorghum could be grown on a big area, we have already succeeded and the purpose of the experiment has been achieved. If we wanted to show them that cattle could be raised there, they did not require to be shown that. What they need to be shown is how to market their cattle economically. We have not succeeded in showing them that at all, because some of the cattle I saw there in December are just as coarse and over-age as any other cattle to be seen in Queensland today. We also set out to fatten pigs on the sorghum. That is quite all right, but the Queens-landers do not need the British Government to put in £1¼ million to show them how to fatten pigs. They have been accustomed to doing that for many years past and, indeed, were disappointed when the Minister of Food failed to give them a contract with adequate prices which would have enabled them to continue their supply of pig meat to Britain.
My feeling is that we have shown that the land at Peak Downs and elsewhere can be farmed intensively and that if we get favourable seasons such as we have had, the financial results are satisfactory. But I see no purpose in continuing this experiment. If we want to help Queensland and ourselves I suggest we should help them to improve their transport system so that the cattle can be got from the outback stations of the Northern Territory and of Northern Queensland more readily to the slaughtering yards at Rockhampton and Brisbane. That would improve the efficiency of their beef industry


and would enable us to get better quality beef from Brisbane.
If we want sorghum grown as a cash crop to be shipped here, all we have to do is to guarantee a reasonable price to Queenslanders for their sorghum at the port. It need not necessarily be grown as a state farm enterprise. The same applies to pigs. If we want as many pigs as we used to get, let us guarantee a decent price to the Queensland and Australian farmers and then we shall get the pigs. It is not necessary for us to engage in a state farming enterprise in Queensland. As a Tory I am rather biassed against state farming enterprises of any kind. I have seen some operate in this country and I have seen also the operations in Tanganyika; I also followed those in the Gambia, and I am not at all convinced that farming is a job which the state is ever likely to do better than the individual.
On those grounds, despite what the Minister has said, I still feel not at all happy in my mind that we should be continuing this investment in Queensland, because I do not see what further good either we or Queensland will get out of our continued investment.

Mr. Anthony Nutting: I was disappointed that the Minister did not, see fit to accept the suggestion of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) that some limit should be imposed on the total amount of advances which, not only the Minister, but any successor in his office, will be able to make to the Queensland British Food Corporation under this scheme. The Minister told us to rest assured that the House of Commons always has adequate check over the expenditure of public money. We have not had a very adequate check. It may be that in this Government we have a rather better check, but in the last Government, with a two to one majority, the House of Commons hardly had an adequate check on the expenditure of money by the Government.
The Minister also suggested that we could be assured that no money would be expended under this Clause by the Minister for the next two years. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the capital resources of the Queensland

Food Corporation were adequate to meet any further liabilities. I should have thought that was the very argument in favour of imposing some limitation upon the Minister of Food in the matter of advancing loans for still further capital expenditure. If he does not want the money, why does he come to Parliament with a Bill in which he asks for a blank cheque from the House of Commons to give him power to advance as much money as he likes?
7.45 p.m.
I agree with what the Minister has said about capital resources. The Overseas Food Corporation Report for 1949 to 1950 says there is enough plant, equipment, machinery and material to expand operations in Queensland from the present 60,000 acres grown in sorghum to 80,000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) said, surely there is enough land in our possession already, since we are farming 700,000 acres. Maybe a little money will be needed to develop water supplies, especially for the cattle grazings. I read in the Report of the Overseas Food Corporation that Peak Downs has now got its new dam which is helping to supply the need for water. Surely, the £1¼ million already put into this scheme is sufficient to last it for some considerable time?
In his speech on Second Reading the Minister said that he looked to this scheme to operate on a sound commercial basis. I must remind him, however, that up to 31st March last year the profit and loss account of the Queensland Food Corporation Scheme showed a loss of £350,000. I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend, who said that was child's play compared with the East African Groundnuts Scheme, but, at the same time, surely it is enough to show, certainly to hon. Members on this side of the Committee, that the scheme has yet to make its way. For those reasons I suggest that we should adhere to our demand that some limitation should be placed in this Bill upon the amount of money which the Minister may be allowed to advance.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedfordshire): There are two points I should like briefly to address to the right hon. Gentleman before he replies to this discussion. The first relates to Clause 4 (3), which deals


with the tendering of an annual report which will be presented to Parliament. If hon. Members who have a copy of the Annual Report of the Overseas Food Corporation for last year will turn to the foot of page 64, they will see that a change was made then in the ending of the financial year—
at the request of the Overseas Food Corporation the financial year of this Corporation was originally fixed to close on 31st March, but arrangements have now been completed with the Overseas Food Corporation to have this date altered to 30th September. This will enable the published Financial Statements and Annual Report to cover a full cycle of agricultural operations, and they will therefore be of much more value.
I think we all agree with the wisdom of that change, but it might have one consequence, and it is to that point that I shall address the Committee.
If, in fact, the result of that change in the financial year should be to delay the next Annual Report until well on in 1952, there will have been a period possibly of some 18 months without this House having received an annual report at all. I have heard rumours that in regard to the Queensland Scheme it is intended that an interim report shall be published at, say, six-monthly intervals. If those rumours could be confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman, it would go far towards meeting any doubts we might have on the subject.
The other point relates to some observations that fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary last week bearing on the suggestion made in the first Annual Report of the Overseas Food Corporation. It was made quite plain that after seven years of the Queensland experiment a complete change in the status of the Scheme might be envisaged. The first Annual Report said:
Not later than seven years after the establishment of the undertaking a review would be made as to whether the undertaking should continue, or whether it should be converted into a co-operative undertaking, or in the case of the grain farms, into individual holdings.
That was made quite plain at the start. In the debate last week the Colonial Secretary said—he added that this was a personal view and he was talking about East Africa, though no doubt the same principle will apply in his mind to both Schemes—
…these things should not go to private enterprise anywhere but remain as public

enterprise in these territories."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 2199.]
That statement by the Colonial Secretary would render absolutely worthless the undertaking given by the Overseas Food Corporation in their first Annual Report.
In order that we should give to the Scheme in Queensland the support which I think many people are anxious to give it, I hope that the Minister of Food will make it quite plain that the Colonial Secretary was speaking only for himself and that it is not the policy of the Government to rule out altogether the handing over of some parts of the Queensland enterprise, with, of course, the consent of the Queensland Government, to private firms if that seems to be the most sensible thing to do.

Sir Richard Acland: I should like my right hon. Friend in his reply to elaborate on one of the points which he mentioned in his opening statement, in which he said, to our very great pleasure, that he hoped we would all be agreed to put down Questions of all sorts and kinds about the way the Scheme is going to run. I am quite sure that we shall all agree to put them in at the Table. The question is whether they would get printed, and that, I understand, does not depend on the Table. In the earlier debate on this matter, you, Sir Charles, or one of your colleagues in the Chair, made this quite clear to us. It is a question whether the Minister has a responsibility for the matter covered by the Question. With great respect to the Minister, it does not depend upon his state of good will. He may be only too anxious to answer the Question, but whether it is answered will depend, will it not, on what the Minister's advisers—his rather technical advisers in his Department—find in the Act?

Lord John Hope: The hon. Member will, however, acknowledge that the change is at least a change for the better, in that the Minister has expressed a desire to answer Questions, even if he does not go further than that.

Sir R. Acland: I made that clear in my opening remarks. I am wondering whether in this case the rather technical and legal advisers of the Minister or of his successor may not find some means of frustrating the very good will which the Minister has shown.
Supposing Questions are put to the Table relating to, say, changes of cropping or stocking policy, rotation of crops, labour relations, rates of pay, conditions of employment, disposal of the produce, plans for processing the produce, or any conceivable change in the system of ownership by the Corporation to some form of co-operative running which may be proposed and mooted—supposing Questions are put to the Table on any of these points—will not the Minister's advisers, as the Bill is now drafted, say, "This is not the Minister's responsibility. It is the responsibility of the Corporation"? In that event, we cannot put Questions on the Paper dealing with such matters as these.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear these things in mind and will consider before the Report stage whether something does not need to be put into the Bill to make it clear that he has such a responsibility. If so, it will allow his goodwill to overrule the technical objection of his advisers and will allow the Questions to appear and to be answered.
Turning speeches into actual drafting Amendments in a Bill is something at which I am very inexpert, but I should have thought that conceivably there could have been added on Report stage a subsection which would indicate that the Queensland Corporation should, from time to time, make reports to the Minister on any major changes in policy or practice which the Corporation proposed, and that on the receipt of such reports the Minister would have the duty of offering comments, advice or instruction, which it would be the duty of the Corporation to consider. Something of this kind would give hon. Members a peg on which Questions could legitimately be hung and would prevent any technical objection from frustrating the Minister's goodwill and his desire to answer such reasonable Questions as hon. Members would like to put down.

Mr. Webb: May I reply to the points made in the discussion so far? The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), of course, really was making a speech against the Scheme entirely. I think that he was really in conflict with his own Front Bench. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain

Crookshank), who opened the discussion said that hon. Members opposite were not against the continuance of the Scheme, whereas the view of the hon. Member for Newbury was an argued case against continuing the Scheme.
The hon. Member wanted to know what we were doing in investing the money of the British taxpayer in Queensland. In recent centuries we have invested our money in many strange places, and I should have thought it was not a bad thing to invest a little of it in our own Dominion. That in itself provides that kind of economic association that will help to bind in bonds of unbreakable solidarity the interests of our Dominions and the United Kingdom. That in itself, quite apart from the economic consequences of the investment, which arise from all overseas investments, anyhow, was, I should have thought, on the whole a very good reason. Now, it has been done, and with such a sufficiently high degree of success—I would not want to put it too high—and with the goodwill of all parties as to justify us in believing that it should go forward.
The hon. Member asked a straight question about what further results I thought would come from the Scheme. I do not know, but on the most cautious look-forward I think that there will be satisfactory results. Against the background of experience of the Overseas Food Corporation, I should be the last to make prophecies and I should always feel that it was better to make sure I was right about this, but on the most cautious examination of the Scheme it is clear that it has possibilities of providing us with food that we need, of providing Australia with food that the growing population of Australia needs, and that by every physical test we can look forward to results that will give satisfaction.
The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Nutting) regretted that we had not fixed a limit. I tried to show that I concede there is something to be said for fixing a limit—it really would be a safeguard; but it is merely my concern about my successor who has been mentioned earlier tonight that prevents my doing that. Frankly, I do not feel that the present occupant of my post, in the situation as I can measure it on the facts available to me, has any right to limit his successor to any figure.
We are in the same difficulty as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, who was quite frank about it. He fixed a figure of £200,000, but he admitted quite frankly that that is just a notional and mythical figure—he does not know, and we do not know. If we were to fix any kind of limit at this moment, it would be a guess. It might be very wide of the target, or it might give a ceiling far too high for potential requirements, but the point is that that figure is going into legislation. It is not something that can be corrected later by Order in Council. It becomes the permanent ceiling for the whole period whilst the Scheme is going on, and it may, indeed, be too low.
I have to look at this matter realistically, and I should have thought that the proper answer was the answer I have given. We are not going to seek power to give money for two years. Let us spend those two years in trying to find out, first, whether a ceiling is necessary and, if we decide that it is, what it ought to be. It might be less than £200,000, or it might be more—I do not know—but frankly, I should not feel that I was acting according to the requirements of my post if I now agreed that any ceiling, wherever we fixed it, was a proper thing to stipulate at this stage.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) raised a question about the Annual Report. It is true that the new date causes some complexity, but I can safely undertake to provide the House, if not with a complete interim report, with adequate interim information. Just when that will be, I could not say offhand, but I should like to be able to give the Committee at the appropriate stage all the adequate information I can. If that involves an interim report of the ordinary kind, so that a document will be laid before the Committee and is available to the Committee, then I would want to do it.
8.0 p.m.
The second point the hon. Member raised was about the future of the Queensland Scheme. I think he was reading too much into what my right hon. Friend said. I do not know, but I heard what my right hon. Friend said, and of course he was giving his own view about the future. But how can any of us commit ourselves to the future of schemes of this sort? It may be that the Government of

the day will decide to abandon the legislation we are passing, and if so, they must do it in consultation with the Government of Queensland. It may be that the Government of the day will say, "It is proper now to pass the Scheme over to private enterprise," but there is nothing in this legislation to prevent that from being done. We are legislating for a foreseeable period, the circumstances of which we can broadly predict, and I should have thought it safe to leave it at that. Of course, the House and the Committee have the right to cancel legislation and do what they think proper at that time.
Now I come to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland). I do wish he would not embarrass me by looking a gift horse in the mouth. It is true that the Minister is bound by the Rules of the House. But what I said tonight was based on what you read out, Sir Charles, in our previous discussion. We had some slight difficulty about this problem of Questions, and you made it very clear to the House on that occasion that the nature of Questions was determined by what the Minister was prepared to answer. Following that Ruling, I was trying to give my own view of my responsibility—so long as I exercise it— for answering Questions, and I repeat that I am prepared, in so far as I can, to answer all Questions which the Table would accept on this great project. I hope my hon. Friend will regard that as a reasonable answer.

Mr. Rankin: I should like my right hon. Friend to clarify the statement he made at the close of his remarks. If I understood him properly, he said that he would be prepared to answer all Questions that the Table would accept. If I am correct in my interpretation of what he has said, he is "passing the buck" back to the Table. My difficulty has been that there have been Questions which the Table did not accept and which, therefore, could not reach my right hon. Friend. Last week I thought we had reached the stage, on the words of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, that he would do his very best; I do not want to put words into his mouth or to interpret them in a way he did not intend, but he certainly gave me the impression that we would have no difficulty in future in putting Questions.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): I said that the future must be guided by the fact that these are substantial changes, and in future the other schemes we were discussing would be financed by Votes. I emphasised that when the Report stage of the Bill was reached, I would say something further on the matter of Questions. I propose when we reach that stage to make a further statement on this matter.

Mr. Rankin: In view of that, I am quite prepared to await the Report stage.

Captain Crookshank: We thank the right hon. Gentleman for the information he has given us, which certainly helped us very much. I agree that any figure of a maximum annual advance which we put in would, as far as we are concerned, be in the, nature of a guess, but I gather that the right hon. Gentleman has no more foundation for suggesting a figure than we have, which is rather important, as we hoped the Ministry would have a notion on this subject. But if the right hon. Gentleman has not, I agree that it is not of much good putting in a figure which would be a guess. We have been on a fishing expedition about the figure, but we have caught nothing.
What the right hon. Gentleman has done is something quite different. He has said that there is no figure, but there will be no advance for two years. It may be worth considering between now and the further stages of the Bill whether we should put that in or not. Hon. Members opposite must realise that all through our discussions on this side of the Committee we have been trying to safeguard the future for the taxpayer in view of the disasters which have come to the taxpayer in the immediate past.
Now, looking back, I think the right hon. Gentleman probably agrees that if some sort of figures had been put in from time to time through the original Act some of the worst of the original losses might have been avoided. That is what we are groping for and it may be possible for something like the words "no advance should be made before" a certain date, should be put in. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider that; certainly my hon. Friends will consider it before we come to the next stage of the Bill.
I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would say something of what was the view our fellow watchdogs, the Queensland Parliament, about this. They have the advantage of being closer to the area and it may be that they have information which the right hon. Gentleman could pass on to us in due course. The right hon. Gentleman must not try to make a distinction between my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) and myself. While it is true that I have said that as far as we could see at present we must try out the experiment, he must not forget that in the first annual Report of the Corporation, on page 82, it was apparently agreed, as a sort of basis, that these would be the articles of the company that
Not later than seven years after the establishment of the undertaking a review would be made as to whether the undertaking should continue, or whether it should be converted"—
and here the hon. baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) will be pleased, if he has forgotten the passage, or indeed if he ever saw it—
into a co-operative undertaking, or in the case of the grain farms,"—
which is the point put forward in the original debate—
into individual holdings. In the latter case preference would be given to employees of the undertaking.
There is there an implied condition that within seven years the whole thing will be thoroughly investigated. I do not know exactly at what date that decision may have been reached, but it must have been prior to March, 1949, so we have already had two years and there are only five more to go.

Mr. Webb: At the most.

Captain Crookshank: Yes, but it says that it might take place at an earlier date. So what my hon. Friend was saying was quite clear; there was a doubt, and apparently there has always been, whether this was the right kind of venture to establish in Queensland because they wanted to have the opportunity of changing it within seven years. There is not very much between us except that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has an advantage over practically every other hon. Member in that he is one of the very few of us who has been there and can, therefore, speak from experience; and his advice on this matter should certainly be


weighed by the Government when he tenders it.
The right hon. Gentleman said in his reply that there was nothing very new about this because we had invested money in all sorts of places. That is quite true, but this is taxpayers' money and it has normally been the private individual who has invested money in different parts of the world, sometimes in our own lands and sometimes in foreign lands. While it is true that this particular venture may, and I certainly hope will, draw economic bonds between ourselves and Australia, we must in duty bound, as Members of this House, look at it through somewhat different spectacles than those we would use if we were merely venturing our own capital in a private venture. Because of history and of what has happened to the Overseas Food Corporation, which is what we are discussing throughout the Bill, we are trying to find some safeguard. After what the right hon. Gentleman has said tonight, I would not ask my hon. Friends to press this Amendment for putting in the maximum which we have suggested. I warn him, however, that we shall consider whether a period of time before which no further advances should be made should not somehow be inserted in the Bill.
For the rest, I am sure that we all wish the venture success because it is the taxpayers' money that we are venturing, not our own. We hope that on the encouraging advice which we have received from the right hon. Gentleman, and the expert information which he has gathered both from the Prime Minister of Queensland—we are glad that the right hon. Gentleman should have discussed the matter with him—and the men on the spot we shall find that this venture is a success and that it will not be another groundnuts scheme—that it cannot be because it deals with sorghum—but that the sorghum and pigs will continue to flourish and render to us on behalf of the taxpayer a fine dividend, and ultimately a return of the money invested.

Amendment negatived.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out from the beginning, to "in," in line 43.
This Amendment was put down in order that we might inquire what sort

of expenses would be involved in making advances, because if it is money which comes out of a Vote it does not seem that there ought to be any expenses involved. If there are not to be any advances for two years perhaps the point is not one of immediate urgency.

Mr. Webb: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to raise, as he says he may on the Report stage, the question of time rather than the amount, the point with which this Amendment is concerned would arise then. I should have thought that it was consequential on the matter of amount rather than of time. Therefore, I suggest that as we are not proceeding with the question of amount we might also not proceed with the question which this Amendment raises.

Captain Crookshank: I do not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman now says. The Bill states in Clause 4 (2) that the Minister may make advances to the Queensland Corporation. Clause 4 (4) says that any expenses in making these advances:
shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament; …
What kind of expenses could be involved in making advances in a case such as that? If, for example, one finds in a Vote under a sub-head an item of x thousands of pounds for the Overseas Food Corporation, what expenses are involved other than are involved in making any other grant out of the Votes of any other Government Department?

Mr. Webb: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has been Financial Secretary to the Treasury, knows how strict that Department is to protect its flank. This is another way of dealing with that problem. I suggest to the House that this Amendment is a consequential one. We have taken the advice of the Treasury, of course, and they are satisfied that there will be no additional expenses involved. I should have thought that we could have left it at that, but if there is any doubt about the point I should like to take further advice about it. Now that we do not propose to proceed with the question of amount I cannot conceive how the point dealt with by this Amendment could conceivably arise. Could we not, therefore, leave the matter until the Report stage and see if it arises


then on any possible new Amendment that is put down, and if so, talk about it then?

Captain Crookshank: I am quite prepared to leave the matter until any further stage if necessary. I am sorry if I have caught the right hon. Gentleman unawares but the point of when an advance is made does not seem to make any decided difference as to whether there are any expenses in connection therewith. I was merely asking what kind of expenses they could be. I should like to find out.

Mr. Webb: I am advised that there are no such expenses involved but that it is felt proper to include this provision in legislation.

Captain Crookshank: If there are never to be expenses this provision should not be included in the Bill, and the Amendment should be accepted. After what the Minister has said I feel more confused than ever about this point.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: The Minister has rather given his case away. He says that we know how strict the Treasury are. The Treasury have had cause to be strict in the last six years. I wish the Treasury were strict on these matters. I do not see any representative of the Treasury on the Government Front Bench, and accordingly I find it all the more difficult to accept the view that the Treasury will exercise any influence in this matter. My view, and I think that of a large majority of my party, about this Amendment is that the Treasury should exercise a very much closer control, and also that the House should be much more fully informed. For that reason I am only too pleased that my right hon. and gallant Friend has moved this Amendment. I do not think anyone can say that from the point of view of the taxpayers we have had an answer or even a quarter of an answer about what we ought to know of the real financial position.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Webb: I beg to move, in page 3, line 43, after "and," to insert:
any sums received by that Minister in respect of interest on or repayment of principal of any such advances shall be paid into the Exchequer.
(5)

This and the two other Amendments in my name which follow, are technical in character and are to clear up a difficulty of accountancy. The three points covered by the Amendments are linked. At present, under Section 18 of the principal Act, which we are amending, any interest paid on an advance or any repayment of such an advance made by me to the Overseas Food Corporation has to be accounted for in a special account certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Clause 4 (4) of the Bill now before us would apply the same process of the special account to repayment of future advances made—if I make any—to the Queensland-British Food Corporation. The Committee will appreciate that the repayment of any such future advances will in any case be shown in the Appropriation Account of my Department. The purpose of this Amendment, which I am moving on advice which I have received since the Bill was drafted, is to remove the unnecessary duplication of the special account procedure and provide for the future that the repayment of any advance or the payment of interest on any advance should be paid into the Exchequer.

Mr. Fredèric Harris: Are these advances bearing interest.

Mr. Webb: No, there is no interest being paid at the moment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 44, leave out" that Minister," and insert" the Minister of Food."

In line 45, leave out "or subsection (2)."—[Mr. Webb.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I wish to raise a minor drafting point. If I understand Clause 4 (1) correctly it applies to the transfer to the Minister of all the rights of the Overseas Food Corporation in respect of advances made by the Cor-portion to the Queensland Corporation. I looked at the Queensland Act, and it is rather a relief to look at the Acts of another Legislature. I found the Act sandwiched between a Measure entitled "The Labour Party" and another dealing with executors, an association of ideas that I found very pleasing.
There are certain functions laid upon the Overseas Food Corporation in other parts of this Bill with regard to the nomination of members of the Corporation; certain provisos if their number fall below a certain figure; the appointment of nominated deputies; details of remuneration and allowances to the Corporation; fixed schemes, etc. Part V of that Act deals with advances to be made to the Overseas Food Corporation. I assume it is the intention of the Minister that all the rights and duties of the Overseas Food Corporation under that Act should now pass to the Minister. With respect I do not think it is clear in the wording of the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Webb: That is clearly the intention. I should like to look into the drafting and if there is any ambiguity or obscurity I will have it corrected.

Mr. Nutting: I hope the Minister will do that. In his speech on Second Reading he referred us to the position which existed when the Overseas Food Corporation was in charge, but did not tell us what the position would be when he takes over. I wish to raise a point on the question of reports we are to receive when he takes over this scheme. I ask the Minister to let us have a better and more informative system of reporting than we have had up to date. The two reports which have appeared, the 1948–1949 and 1949–50 reports, are of such a highly detailed and technical character that although I read both of them twice each. I was unable to get any general grasp or picture of what the scheme had achieved up to date and the advantages to this country. I am encouraged to ask that question by the remark the Minister made earlier when he said it was vitally important that we should get a grasp of the matter. I hope that from time to time we may get a general picture of this scheme and of its working.

Mr. F. Harris: I was very surprised at the reply of the Minister that these advances are not bearing any interest so far as the Queensland scheme is concerned. We have been very gentle with the Government this evening regarding that scheme. Many of us wish to try to find out why the Government think it is not necessary to charge interest on the advances or loans. Goodness knows, they are quick enough with any private enterprise scheme to try to cash in on the interest forth-

coming, and to take as much taxation as they possibly can. Why should the Minister here support the view that such advances under the Queensland scheme should bear no interest whatsoever?
I believe that in July, 1949, the advance was in the region of £370,000 and I believe that now it is up to £1¼ million or £1½ million. But whatever it is it should bear a charge in respect of interest. If it is the genuine view of the Minister—and I am sure it must be if he expressed it this evening—that this scheme is to go ahead, and presumably in due course to make profits, there is one thing I wish to see avoided. That is that the public should have put across to them the belief that profits are being made, whereas they are not really being made, or are being reduced in some form.
Surely it is only right that from the start there should be proper charges in respect of interest on the advances being incurred under this scheme. However successful it may be in the years to come, they should bear a proper rate of interest. I would not suggest what the rate should be. It may be 2 per cent., 3 per cent. or 4 per cent., that is up to the advisers of the Minister. But surely it cannot be suggested that this money should bear no interest whatsoever? I must admit to being very disturbed at the reply of the Minister. Is he able to tell us when he considers this money will bear any interest? Many of us were pleased to learn his view that the financing of this scheme is such that he will not need any further money in the next two years. As I understand, he staked his reputation. I only hope that it will not be the same as when his predecessor staked his reputation on the groundnut scheme when he said it would be the best public scheme he had ever undertaken in his time of serving the public.
This is a very important point. With all the schemes that the Government undertake we have an unhappy feeling about the financial arrangements, and I am strongly of opinion that here is another instance which has been put to us, and accepted rather easily by hon. Members as quite natural and automatic. Why should it be? Why should not advances bear a proper rate of interest even if the scheme is losing money at the moment? Why do not we draw up proper profit and loss accounts, with a view to telling the


public in the years ahead, when as we all hope profits will be made, that these profits are correct and that everything right has been done in the handling of these accounts? I hope the Minister will enlarge on that point, because surely he as Minister does not support the view that the Government should advance money without charging the proper rate of interest. After all, the Queensland authorities are in this Scheme with us and they would like to see this matter rectified

Mr. Webb: The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Nutting) again raised a question which was raised by another hon. Member. May I assure him that the changes required to be made in the Queensland Act will be made by the Queensland Parliament, quite apart from any necessary re-drafting we may have to make. We have that assurance, and adjustments will be made in the Queensland legislation in due course. On the second point raised by the hon. Member I can only repeat that it is my firm and resolute desire to amplify and make public the information made available about this scheme. In so far as that can be done I shall undertake to do it. It may be done by amplifying the annual report, or increasing the number of reports or in other ways, but in so far as information can be made available it will be.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris), was rather disturbed. It was only because his question was a rather sharp and salutory one. I should have thought he would realise, in view of what he ought to know—and I am sure he has studied all the reports about this scheme in detail—that it was a deliberate decision in the beginning not to seek to put interest on the advances. But it is clear that all the advances will bear interest, and the Corporation with the consent of all concerned have been accruing a reserve to pay interest on the advances. So far the rate has not been fixed but the matter is, I may say, under almost urgent examination. I discussed this point recently with the Chairman and they feel they are reaching the point when they can begin to service their capital. I think with that assurance the hon. Member may let the matter go.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: I had an opportunity some weeks ago of seeing the Queensland Scheme in operation. I thought that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) in the Second Reading debate did not pay the tribute that ought to have been paid to those who have done so much to make the Scheme a success. He did pay a tribute to the Deputy-Chairman of the Queensland Food Corporation, but I think he should have gone further and paid tributes to Mr. Bond and Mr. McEwen the two production managers on the job who are performing a magnificent task.
The hon. Member should also have called attention to the fact—because he was probably informed as we were—that at least two experiments which have been carried out on the Queensland Scheme have never before been tried in Australia. It was believed by many farmers in Australia that it was not possible to fatten store cattle on sorghum stubble. It has been proved to the Queensland farmers that it is possible to do so. Also, as a result of an experiment, it has now been established that it is possible to grow a good crop of sorghum in Central Queensland with a lower rainfall than is required for a crop of grass. It is, therefore, possible to have sorghum stubble available for feeding store cattle when grass is not available. We saw some 8,000 or 9,000 acres of this sorghum growing when we were there. We also saw the ploughs out on the project, ploughing up many more thousands of acres.
The tribute paid by the Chairman of the Rockhampton Chamber of Commerce is worthy of repetition. Mr. Ross is by no means a friend of either the majority party in the Queensland Parliament or of the Government of this country. He praised the Queensland project, saying that it has given an opportunity of proving that the soil in central Queensland, which in the past has been used only for grazing cattle, could be put to more profitable use. In the Peak Downs project there were two or three sheep per acre before it was taken over by the Corporation. It is now producing much more per acre.
This is contributing greatly towards making up for the food shortage in the world, and I am convinced that the Minister is justified in going ahead with his


scheme. The Minister, in ensuring that the Queensland Scheme goes ahead, is not only making a contribution to the food supply of this country, but is making it possible for the Queensland soil outside the Corporation's propect to be put to much better use.
The hon. Member for Newbury in his Second Reading speech said that sorghum was grown in Queensland before the Peak Downs project was started. My information is that none was grown until it was proved to the farmers in the neighbourhood of Peak Downs that it was possible to make such use of it. The Corporation of Queensland, by their experiments, are proving that it is possible to make greater use of their land than ever before. I ask the Minister not to believe what he is told by hon. Members opposite. They constantly say that the trouble with Government sponsored projects is that the Government will not take risks. When risks are taken to prove that something better can be done, we are then told that they ought not to have been taken. I urge my right hon. Friend to go ahead with this project, because I believe it has great possibilities.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE.)

(1) On the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, an independent committee of four members shall be appointed by the Secretary of State from names submitted by:

The Institute of Chartered Accountants;
The Institute of Civil Engineers;
The Indian Tea Association; and
The Minister of Agriculture of the Dominion of Canada.

(2)This independent committee shall investigate and report upon the expenditure, development, and results of the Overseas Corporation in East Africa from the date the Corporation is taken over by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and their report shall be submitted by the Secretary of State to Parliament before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-three.—[Sir W. Smiles.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir W. Smiles: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I would begin by calling attention to the time of the appointment and of the report of the proposed committee. The committee would not begin to investigate until 1st January, 1952, and the report would be submitted by 1st January, 1953. It is extremely probable that by that time there will be another Government, and I certainly should not introduce this Clause if I did not think that it would help and not inconvenience any Government which might be in power.
In one of the speeches which he made on this Bill, the Secretary of State for the Colonies said that nobody in East Africa knew more about agriculture in that part of the world than did the people who were working on the Groundnuts Scheme. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman knows all about coal mines and that if I went to Wales or anywhere else to look at coal mines, he would, quite rightly, pay no attention to anything that I had to say. When it comes to tropical agriculture the position is different, however; I have spent a great many years of my life in it.
These independent inspections which I propose are usual in tropical agriculture. The inspectors are sent out nearly every month, and certainly every year. Many companies which have big plantations in the East—in India, Malaya, Ceylon and elsewhere—send out skilled inspectors who understand tropical agriculture. These are independent inspections and these men report at least every year.
I can recall in 1905, which is a long time ago, going out as assistant to a tropical scheme in Assam, and I can remember an independent inspector being sent from London to inspect the scheme on which I was working. I remember the superintendent and the manager tearing their hair because this man was coming out, and saying, "We know far more about it than anybody else for we have been working on the place." Nevertheless, he inspected the land and ordered 400 acres to be abandoned at once.
Afterwards, we went into lunch. As the junior assistant I was less than the dust beneath the chariot wheels, and they were all talking over my head. The inspector said, "I do not care what you say; I have been sent out to inspect this plantation, I have inspected it and given my report. If the directors do not like to


take that advice, they need not. "The discussion ended with a first-class row. Twenty years ago I visited the same plantation and saw those 400 acres. The manager, who by then was another man—of course, he was a Scotsman—said,"If it had not been for the fact that that man came out and inspected, this place would have been bankrupt." As I say, it is no new thing to have independent inspectors. Friends with whom I have discussed this matter have suggested that we should have expert tropical advisers from the Colonial Office to do this work but I cannot accept that. Dog does not eat dog. Such agricultural advisers from the Colonial Office would not make a bad report on one of their own kidney.
If hon. Members look at the Clause again they will see that the first names are to be submitted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Since the Cohen Committee reported, all of us in private enterprise are the slaves of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. We dare not move an inch without carrying our chartered accountants with us. If our books and inventories are not right and if our stores accounts are not right, they immediately tell us what to do before they sign the accounts, because under the new law the members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants have to be very careful indeed before they sign any company's report.
Secondly, I suggest that names should be submitted by the Institute of Civil Engineers. All tropical agriculture largely depends upon civil engineering, and also upon mechanical engineering—on the men who know how much horsepower is transmitted by 10,000 revolutions a minute of a crankshaft. But for some of these civil engineers I do not believe that any of the great rubber plantations or tea plantations or sisal plantations could ever have been developed at all.
My third suggestion is that names should be submitted by the Indian Tea Association. That is a body of planters, but I do not mind a bit. I do not mind whether it is the Indian Tea Association or the Malayan Association or any other association of the sort that submits the names; except that I do not want an association from Africa, because there is no use in a man making a bad report on a place when perhaps he is to meet the

manager's wife at the club afterwards, because if a bad report is made, then there is bad blood in the community and things do not work out well. It is much better that the nominating body and the inspectors should come from 300 or 400 miles away, so that they have no social intercourse in the ordinary way with the managers of the plantations. I do not much mind whether the Indian Tea Association is chosen or not, but I do say that these people have had 100 years of opening up tropical plantations, and they know to a decimal point of a rupee how much it should cost, and they are always out to make profits and not losses. I know that that is a bad thing to say to hon. Members opposite, but perhaps they will pardon me.
Next I suggest that names be submitted by the Minister of Agriculture of the Dominion of Canada. I am advised that in Canada mechanical clearing by tractors and bulldozers is far more advanced than in any other part of the world, and that there are men there who really can advise and really do know how much these schemes should cost. I ought, perhaps, to say that one of these men should be a Scotsman because, as I mentioned before, the best planters in the world—and I know a thousand I suppose—come from Aberdeen. I do not know what Aberdeen is like, but I think life must be so hard there that any place in the world is a paradise for those people. We used to say of those chaps from Aberdeen that if they were caught in a brick trap outside the foundries of Aberdeen, they would have a bottle of whisky. Anyhow, those men do know how far a rupee goes and how to get value for it.
I say that this new Clause which I am moving will honestly be a help to any Government. If the present Colonial Secretary is still in office in January, 1953, then I say, with my hand on my heart, that it will be of assistance to him; and if, as I think will be the case, it is my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the Committee who are sitting on the benches opposite, then I say that it will be of assistance to them also. This new Clause is moved only in the interests of the hard-worked taxpayers of (his country.

Mr. F. Harris: I want to support my hon. Friend's proposed Clause. I want to do so with some fairly detailed explanation. If I had had the privilege of catching Mr. Speaker's eye on Second Reading, I should have endeavoured to make very clear then what is my own personal view about the second go at this scheme; and I should have said that I, personally, would have wished to sponsor a continuation of this Scheme if an impartial inquiry had been permitted, so that all of us, the Members of this Committee and the people in the country, could have had confidence in it—the confidence that would have come after such an inquiry into a very unhappy and large financial loss, before the second expenditure was embarked upon.
8.45 p.m.
As my hon. Friend said, in moving this Clause, we are really trying to safeguard the Colonial Office and the Colonial Secretary himself, now that they are about to take over the continuation of this Scheme from 1st April, even though it is on a smaller scale. I am sure that if he looks at it very carefully from that sensible point of view, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there is nothing unfair in this suggestion. It is merely the safeguard that anybody in business often adopts in order to be satisfied that everything in the business is going according to plan. An impartial report from someone entirely apart from those officially running the Scheme that the Scheme is being handled satisfactorily, and that it has sufficient prospects, would justify the support of everybody concerned.
Acceptance of this new Clause would have the effect of stopping quite a lot of the arguments that arise from both sides of the Committee about what is unhappily happening with this Scheme. It must be recognised that there has been a considerable cutting down of the Scheme, and that it must now be handled on a very different basis. One thing many of us cannot easily overcome is the feeling of great uncertainty that has arisen over the last few years, and which still exists in a large degree. Those who have had any connection with the territory, have seen it for ourselves and have had personal contacts with those concerned, have been bombarded by letters giving us various bits of information which, on

being checked up, have unfortunately been found to be correct.
If we are to go on with this Scheme, as apparently we are, we must have some additional security. It is a great pity that the original suggestion made from this side was not accepted, although I agree that that was not the responsibility of the Colonial Secretary. This new Clause would provide a safeguard which I should have thought every hon. Member would sincerely welcome. The cost would be very small. The people suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend to form the committee would be of great advantage in holding an impartial inquiry from time to time. There is no suggestion of their being rushed. The suggestion is that the committee should not be formed until the end of the year, and that it should not report back for the best part of 12 months, although the earlier the better. The effect of such a report would be to give everybody renewed and added confidence in meeting any type of criticism or any uneasiness we might feel about the success of the Scheme in future years not being fully ensured.
I hope the Colonial Secretary will appreciate our view on this. I, for one, would be content if he said: "In principle we accept the suggestion that we should have an impartial body to report back to us from time to time, but at this stage we cannot agree to the people whom it is suggested should form the committee." I can assure him that that approach would be accepted in the right spirit. I hope the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs will agree. I do not know whether he is going on any more visits to East Africa—and we will not touch on that at the moment—but it would be a grand thing for him, and for other Ministers, to have an impartial inquiry, which would cost very little. It would be something entirely apart from the Colonial Office, but it would be an assurance and safeguard to us all.
Many of us have watched this Scheme for a long time. We had debates on it in the House with the previous Minister of Food, and we asked question after question on things which we knew were happening in connection with the Groundnuts Scheme. We had to accept answers the effect of which showed that, either the Minister did not know what he was talking about or that, unfortunately, he had


been very much misled. A typical example was the answer which he gave to a question about margarine. He considered that there were going to be tons and tons of margarine as a result of the Scheme.
We remember what we have gone through during the last two or three years in particular, the money which has been squandered, and the breaking down of many of the staff out there, who were imbued with the view that they were going to do something for the Colonies and who started off in that grand spirit. We know that some of the staff never took part in the Scheme when they arrived there, because they were so bitterly disappointed with what they saw.
There is surely an added cause why we should have the additional protection of an impartial inquiry. When we were asked to go ahead with this second jump, we were asked to do it through the White Paper, which was a sort of prospectus on which we had to decide whether or not we would go forward with any additional scheme. We on this side said that we wanted to consider it. I personally took the view that I could not support it unless there was an independent inquiry and report that the Scheme was likely to go through satisfactorily. One has only to turn to one or two points in the White Paper itself to realise the need for this safeguard, which is so essential. It says:
The original aims of the scheme have proved incapable of fulfilment. That is not to say, however, that the scheme and the work which has been done on it are now valueless and should be abandoned.
Another comment is:
The Corporation have reported that they are unable to comply with the provisions of the Overseas Resources Development Act which required them to operate on a commercial basis. …
Another comment says:
The scheme if successful will point the way to future development.
Time and again, when one reads this report, one has a feeling of grave un-happiness that this report was rather rushed out and that figures were put forward to influence us to go ahead with this new Scheme.
Those of us who took part in the Committee stage of the Bill the other day were surely very forcibly struck by the lack of information available all the way through

on the question of accounts, and the belief that many of the figures which were produced were completely unsatisfactory. In fact, many of the Ministers, if they were frank, would have to say that they had not a clue about what was happening. They had to turn to their advisers, who did not appear to know much about it either.
That makes it all the more important that there should be some impartial body to report back to us and to give us the evidence which the people of the country want, and which I should have thought all hon. Members would want, and certainly the Minister would want, in order to be fully satisfied that if we go on spending money and the Scheme goes on it will be to the benefit of all concerned. Therefore, I conclude by hoping that the Colonial Secretary will accept the new Clause, in principle, although he may not agree with it in detail, bearing in mind that it has been put forward very faithfully to help all concerned.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I rise for a few moments to support the Clause. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise, after due reflection, what a tremendous advantage an independent committee of this kind would be to him and his Department. We touched on this question briefly during Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman then took the line that there was no need for any fresh committees of inquiries and reports because there had been so many already. He instanced the Kongwa Working Party Report and the inquiry into the scheme in the Southern Provinces, and said that we could not challenge the integrity or wisdom of those who made these reports. No one would dream of so doing. No one challenges their integrity or competence.
I would point out, however, that local knowledge, however valuable, and no one doubts that it is so, tends, when overemphasised, to produce a rather narrow judgment. To give an illustration, I suppose that if there were to be a Royal Commission on betting, the Commission would not be composed entirely of bookmakers, although they would, of course, be adequately represented. The Kongwa Working Party was presided over by a director of the Corporation. I am not questioning their integrity, but it does give to the taxpayer, whose money is


involved, a suspicion that an inquiry of this sort is something of an internal audit. From the psychological point of view, as well to protect the Minister and his Department from undue criticism, there is a good deal to be said for the setting up of an independent committee.

Mr. Rankin: I can appreciate the motives that have inspired this Clause, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will proceed on the matter very cautiously before he seriously considers accepting it. It would be fatal to this transfer if we overloaded the Minister and those who have to work with him with independent committees that will act as a sort of inspectorate in regard to almost every day-to-day action of the Corporation.

Sir W. Smiles: The Clause refers to only one inspection. It is not intended that there should be a continual inspection, although I think that if the right hon. Gentleman adopts the suggestion of an independent report he will wish to continue with it.

Mr. Rankin: The point I am seeking to make is that a committee of this nature must exercise in some form or another an overall inspection of the work that is going on in order to make its report; otherwise I do not see how the report can have any significance at all. If there is to be only one investigation, I fail to see why this should be contained in the Bill, because what is desired could be done by the Minister on his own initiative. There is nothing which is proposed here that gives to the Minister any power which he has not already got. By virtue of his position as Minister he can at any time appoint just such a type of committee to inquire into any aspect of the work.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman would agree, I am sure, that no such committee has ever been set up in the past when all these things were happening; and also the Colonial Secretary at the moment has not agreed to any such further check on the situation, which is why we are anxious to press this Amendment.

Mr. Rankin: I am not dealing at the moment with what has or has not happened. I understood that the theme now is,
Come let us anew, our journey pursue.

We were to start all over again, and I feel that it is not going to help if we are going to conscript and confine the working of the Development Corporation through a committee of this nature. As I have said, there is nothing in the Clause which cannot be exercised by the Minister in virtue of the responsibility which he has as a Minister, and there is nothing I hope that is going to detract from what should be the best control of all, the control by Parliament itself.
I have this further objection to the committee. Its personnel is far too narrow. The new Clause refers to a
'…report upon the expenditure, development and results.…
So far as expenditure and results are concerned, I would not question the claim that a committee of this nature is well qualified to deal with these aspects of the work, but where I differ is on the question of development. The development referred to here is concerned not merely with economic development in East Africa, but also with social development, and a committee of this nature, if it is to serve any useful function in that regard, must contain representatives of that section of the community who have wide experience of what social development actually means. That is lacking here. The committee is far too narrow, because it should include, if it is to serve any useful purpose at all, representatives of the trade union movement and of the wide body of public opinion outside this House which has interested itself in the social development of the Colony. In my estimation the Clause fails because it is too narrow.
Finally, I believe that if it were adopted then, in effect, it would be restrictive in the working out of what I think is the mission which we are going to give to this Development Corporation. I repeat, there is nothing in the Clause that cannot be done by the Minister on his own initiative. Also, Parliament ought to be jealous at any time of delegating any of the authority which it rightfully possesses to any committee however independent and however influential.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: The hon. Member has just said that if such a committee as is proposed were set up, it would overload the Minister.

Mr. Rankin: No, I did not say anything of the kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I did not mean to say "overloading the Minister," and I did not realise that I had. I thought that it would be overloading the committee which is to be charged with carrying out this type of development work. I think that it would be overloading it.

Mr. Craddock: I must say, with respect to the hon. Member, that he did use those words, because I took them down. The real reason why my hon. Friends are proposing the new Clause is to stop the further overloading of the British taxpayer. I should have thought that from that point of view and in view of past experience, the Secretary of State for the Colonies would have no hesitation in accepting the new Clause.
I should like to refer him to one or two figures. The original scheme was to be the clearance of approximately three million acres at a total cost to the Treasury of £23 million. I assume that that is roughly for clearing, although it is not quite clear whether it was to be simple ordinary clearing or whether it included stumping and rooting. Be that as it may, the figures worked out at £7 per acre. According to the best calculations I have been able to make from the figures we now have, and taking in the £36 million which had been written off, it would appear that for clearing only the cost has been no less than £130 per acre. If these figures are even approximately correct I should think that the Secretary of State would welcome an investigation after a year's working of the new scheme.
Furthermore, it is contemplated that cattle will be introduced into the new scheme. There is no degree of certainty about it, because experience has not proved whether the type of grass grown in that part of the world will be suitable for cattle. Within a year, information will have been gained on that point. There is an important statement on page 13 of the White Paper, in connection with the Urambo Scheme. This is what it says:
Financial provision is made in the plan to cover farming losses in Urambo up to 31st December, 1953.
Surely we have had enough of these losses. It goes on to say:
It is impossible to predict with accuracy what the results will be over so large a new

estate, or how long it may take before production over the whole area becomes self-supporting.
I suggest to anyone who has had experience in that part of the world that by the end of the present year it will be quite apparent whether the new scheme is to be a reasonable success or not.
For those reasons I should have thought that the Minister would like to accept a Clause of this Character, although I am not very happy about the proposed composition of the board of inquiry. I remember when I was embarking upon tea growing in East Africa that I consulted a very experienced tea planter from India, and that after the small experiment that we did venture, as a result of his advice, we found that the results came out all wrong. East Africa and tropical areas are sometimes extraordinarily difficult places to work.
On Second Reading the Minister challenged my right hon. Friends to say whom they would suggest for an inquiry. As a humble back bencher. I suggest that an inquiry composed of the following personnel would be a good one. It should be headed by Mr. Clay, of the Minister's own Department, who knows more about East African agriculture than any person in this country or anywhere else. In addition there should be three members of the Agricultural Service from East Africa, one from each of the three territories, and three European planters. After all, this is primarily an agricultural problem, and I feel that a body such as that, with the scientific and the practical combined, would be an excellent one to conduct such an inquiry. I sincerely trust that the Secretary of State will agree to some such Clause being inserted in the Bill.

Mr. John Grimston: I also commend the Clause to the Minister. I belong to the still relatively small band of hon. Members who have visited all three of the schemes within the last six months or so. I am convinced from what I have seen and the discussions that I have had that a body of this kind would not only be of immense value to the Minister but would also be welcomed by the people on the job. If the Minister turns down a proposal of this kind, he will simply be cutting himself off from valuable and impartial advice of an entirely non-critical kind.
I very much hope that the Minister will accept this for another reason. I believe in the scheme and I believe that it can be made to go, but I still do not think it is on the right lines. I feel that would be the kind of advice the Minister would get from this type of body—no doubt widened to include the sort of people suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) who would be acceptable to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, North (Sir W. Smiles).
To come to the kind of practical point with which the body should deal, the Minister, when winding up the Second Reading debate, asked the Opposition if they felt there was a better man than, for example, Professor Frankel, to report on a matter of this kind. The Minister made great play with that. I would point out that Professor Frankel published a Minority Report on the Working Party suggesting various organisational changes which I believe should be made.
I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) on one point. The agricultural side may very well have been settled, but I do not think that the size of the organisation and the overheads which this body still has to carry will be a tolerable burden for it. In the White Paper on the future of the plan it is proposed to carry on clearing at Nachingwea. This is admitted by everybody to be the uneconomic part of preparing the land; it is quite clear that felling is efficient. Yet for three years the Minister now proposes to carry on clearing, an uneconomic process, which must show him a financial loss. This kind of body might very well say that that was unnecessary. Another matter which the body would criticise would be the extremely high costs for the London office which is proposed. I do not believe that this kind of agriculture should have to bear anything on account of its London office. I have in my own home the London office of a fair-sized tropical agricultural undertaking, but that does not appear in our costs. I do not think this kind of agriculture should have to bear that kind of expense.
9.15 p.m.
The proposals in the White Paper will make the same mistakes in many respects as have been made by the original plan.

It says there that the methods in existence at the moment are too expensive in relation to the value of the land produced. That is the Government's own criticism of its past performance but, as I think another hon. Member has calculated, the estimates we have been asked to approve will mean a cost of £70 per cleared acre in the Southern Province. That has to be compared with £5 and £6 at which land can be bought cleared in many other parts of Africa, and £3 17s. 6d. is what it will still cost cleared by mechanical means for the growing of sisal.
Those are the kind of questions that have to be faced by the Government, and the body suggested in this new Clause would be of great value to the Minister in helping him to make up his mind. If he has to economise, is it really necessary, for example, to have in the houses electric immersion heaters, built-in cupboards and cement bricks? All these are practical points on which the body suggested here would give the Minister good advice. Also a great deal of thought ought to be given to the allocation of overheads, again a highly technical matter.

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he appears to be dealing with the matter as though this committee is to give advice on what shall be done in the future. That does not seem to me to be in order.

Mr. Grimston: Thank you, Major Milner. I was not trying to deal with what will happen in the future but rather envisaging the committee criticising what has taken place in the past and, at the same time, trying to convey to the Minister where economies could be made. However, I will leave that aspect, though I think there is a great deal of advice which the Minister could get from a body of this kind based on past experience. I am certain that my hon. and gallant Friend does not want to tie himself to the particular form of nomination he has put forward. If the Minister, as I think, really wants to see this scheme a success in its future form, not only for his own benefit but for the benefit of the people in East Africa, I hope he will accept this proposal.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): Perhaps it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene to express my view


on the new Clause. It is essential to realise that we are not now inquiring into what has happened. That was discussed previously. Indeed, it was the subject matter of the Division that we had in the House on the Second Reading, arising out of the Amendment moved by the Opposition. What is proposed is that this new Clause shall make it mandatory upon the Secretary of State in January next to set up a committee to inquire and to report to the Secretary of State by 1st January, 1953. I will not discuss the question whether, for the purpose of such an inquiry, the suggested names or institutions in the Clause are the right ones or not. In moving it, the hon. Gentleman said it was a matter which could be considered.
As from 1st April, subject to this Bill becoming an Act of Parliament, the new Scheme will begin. There will be a Corporation, about which we shall in due course be making an announcement, which will be housed in Tanganyika. There are questions of organisation, to which the hon. Member referred, which I shall be discussing with the Corporation when they get going after 1st April. They will then be putting into operation the Scheme which has been outlined in the White Paper, a scheme which has been recommended to us by the working parties to which I referred in my Second Reading speech.
I think it is accepted that, for the examination of a scheme of this kind, they were fairly competent bodies. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) will be very glad to know that Mr. Clay, whom he recommended as a man who ought to be on any committee investigating this question, was a member of both committees, and that, therefore, I am accepting Mr. Clay's advice. The hon. Member for Spelthorne has already said that I could get no better advice anywhere in the world.
The Scheme will come into operation on 1st April. I shall have to submit the matter to the House of Commons at the end of the first year's working—that is, on 31st March, 1952. The Corporation will submit a report, which will be available to the House. We shall then have had a full 12 months' working of the new Scheme. We can discuss and

debate the report. The Secretary of State will have to come here and speak about it and discuss it with the House.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: When will the report be available?

Mr. Griffiths: I hope fairly quickly after 31st March, 1952—at the end of the first year. In the meantime, however, there will be a continuous opportunity for the House of Commons to keep itself informed of the scheme by Questions to the Secretary of State, about the admissibility of which we shall be making a statement when we reach the next stage of the Bill on Wednesday.
We have had our arguments and our quarrel about the past, so for a moment I put all that on one side. I want to begin on the assumption that we all desire that the new Scheme shall start as smoothly as is possible, with the good will of the House, of the country and of everybody in Tanganyika. So much depends for the people of Tanganyika upon the Scheme succeeding—far more than on which of us wins a political battle here. I repeat that in 30 years' time the population of this territory will have doubled. Somebody has to feed them and to bring their land under cultivation. We all agree, therefore, that the success of the Scheme is of vital importance to the welfare of this community, for which we have responsibility, and a responsibility which we want to carry through.
We are anxious that the Scheme should start in the best way. I am anxious that the new Corporation, if I may call it that, shall also start with good will. I do not think it would be a good send-off for the Corporation to tell them that, as from 1st April, we entrust them with the work on the spot and the Secretary of State becomes responsible for the Scheme, but that at the same time as we do that we are setting up a committee to inquire into it. It would be a very bad piece of psychology to do that. I make that my first point.
Secondly, if I appoint a committee on 1st January, 1952, the new Scheme will have been in operation only for nine months. There will not have been a complete 12 months' working. That would be too soon, and even if at some stage we thought—I do not dismiss the possibility that at some stage an independent inquiry by competent expert people


may or may not be necessary—that an inquiry was necessary, I would reserve the right to initiate it to the Secretary of State. When I take that responsibility, I reserve that right for the Secretaries of State for the future; I reserve the right for the House; but it would not be right for us now to commit ourselves to an inquiry on 1st January, 1952, when the new Scheme will not have been in operation for a complete year.
It is a scheme on which all the experts agree that if we are to get a real chance to prove it a success or otherwise, a longer period is necessary. It will be subject to a review every year, as we shall be making by the annual report, and to a complete review at the end of three years in 1954. Subject to these two things, it is desirable that if initially the Scheme is a success, there shall be an understanding that it gets the opportunity of the seven years which everyone tells us is essential if we are to prove its success or failure.

Mr. F. Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the new Clause suggests that we should get the report back within a year and three-quarters, so that the question of nine months is not very important from that aspect?

Mr. Griffiths: All I am saying is that at this moment I do not see any advantage—I have mentioned the disadvantages—in appointing a committee. For the reasons I have given, I think it would be a bad thing. If the committee were appointed in January, 1952, it would be making its examination after just nine months' work, which I am sure everyone will agree is not a long enough period. Within three months of the date on which it is suggested I should appoint a committee, by 31st March, 1952, the first 12 months will have been completed and shortly after there will be a report and an opportunity for the House to discuss that report. We can then discuss it calmly and consider whether it is then desirable that a committee should be appointed.
I hope that things will turn out so reasonably well that the House will agree that no inquiry is necessary, but if an inquiry were necessary, it could be made on the basis of consideration of the report for the first year. If we had that report and felt that, because of some unsatisfactory feature disclosed in the report, an

inquiry was necessary, we should be in a much better position to judge who were the right persons to appoint to such a committee of inquiry.
For all these considerations, I hope the Committee will reject this proposed new Clause. I hope they reject it now, having had our quarrels about the past and having agreed to the Second Reading. I hope that the hon. Baronet will withdraw the new Clause. He knows there are safeguards, which I have described. Let us have 12 months' working of the Scheme and a report and then consider, in the light of the 12 months' working, whether an inquiry is necessary or otherwise; but at this stage to begin with an inquiry next January would be wrong.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: If the criterion for this Groundnut Scheme had been the reasonableness of Ministers' speeches, there would not have been any trouble. The Minister has given a very reasonable speech, but so did the Secretary of State for War make reasonable speeches. In the last three years we have had nothing but speeches of precisely the same character as that to which we have just listened.
First it is said that the idea of an inquiry which we have urged time and time again in the last three years would be of no particular advantage. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) said that it would be overloaded and restricted, just the words the Secretary of State for War made us accustomed to during all these years. Of course the Government says, "It will be a bother to us, leave the Corporation to manage." They have said that all these years and we now know that the House made a profound mistake in not insisting, against the advice of Ministers, upon an inquiry. We are not going to make that mistake any longer.
Our view is that too many pledges have been made and broken and too much is at stake now and in the future, even with the limited scheme, to allow this to go forward without making an inquiry, not only in the competence of the Minister, but mandatory upon the Minister. That is what this means. This new scheme is to be quite precise, it is to be, in the words of the White Paper:
A scheme of large-scale experimental development to establish the economies of clearing and mechanised or partially mechanised agriculture.


Does any one say, does the Minister say, that he yet knows the economies of clearing? Did not my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston), expose the complete confusion that now exists about the economy and the cost of clearing? That is one of the principal jobs of this new Corporation.
9.30 p.m.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, North (Sir W. Smiles), who moved this new Clause, suggests with great wisdom that we should secure an expert on clearing. I know, as he does, that in Canada great works of this kind have been carried out on a massive scale. Great experience exists there about this problem. Why not ask the Canadian Government to let us have one or two experts who have done this very work? What is wrong with that? I should have thought it very proper that that should be done.
Then there is the economies of mechanised farming. My hon. and gallant Friend suggested, as did another of my hon. Friends, that we should ask some people who are experts in tropical mechanised agriculture to come and look at this scheme. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman telling us that we shall receive a report from the Corporation. The Corporation will tell us what they have been doing. They have been giving us those reports for a great many years but those reports have always been wrong. How can we expect the new reports to be—�ž

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman now appears to be talking about advice. I understand the proposed new Clause to envisage a report which will deal with what happens between the time when the Bill becomes an Act and the date at which the report is to be presented. It has nothing to do with advice as to what the Corporation should do during that intervening period.

Mr. Stewart: It is to be a report on the first year's working of the new scheme. I am only suggesting that it would be wrong for the Committee to assume that the new Corporation or the minimised Corporation is any more likely to be right after a year than it has been in the past, and that, therefore, we need an independent inquiry on the next year's operations.
What is wrong with that? The right hon. Gentleman says that that is too early, but the Committee will be looking at the result of the scheme after it has been working for a year or indeed for 15 months. After the scheme has been going for that length of time is it not time to look at it and not let it continue on completely wrong lines for another six years? As the Corporation have done that in the past how are we to judge whether they are on the right lines now? There is not a scrap of evidence other than the word of the Minister and his advisory council that this scheme is likely to be right. It is just as likely to be completely wrong, and before we spend another £6 million or £7 million we should, like any ordinary commercial concern, have a look at it at the end of the first year.
I do not see how we can possibly do what the Minister suggests, and withdraw the new Clause. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will press it to a Division. We are here dealing with a matter of principle. Having been once bitten and misinformed—grossly misinformed, criminally misinformed—we have no right to put our heads in the lion's mouth again and proceed without an independent inquiry. Having made these gross blunders the Government should not be permitted to carry on this scheme, even on a limited scale, without a complete independent inquiry.

Captain Crookshank: We have some more work before us, and the time is perhaps approaching to settle the issue with which we are now dealing—'that is, the new Clause of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, North (Sir W. Smiles). I entirely agree with the spirit of it. I am not so sure that I would myself have proposed the composition of the committee which he suggests, but that is a matter of detail and the bodies which he has selected to draw up a panel are certainly admirable. I do not see why they should not be just as good selectors as anyone else.
I repeat that I am in agreement with the idea behind the new Clause because, as the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart), has pointed out, the Secretary of State, in his reply, seemed to have overlooked the fact that we have now before us the unfortunate experience since 1947 of the working of the Corporation in East Africa, and it is quite true that if


we had had some way in which outside and not internal inquiries could have been made, many of the losses might have been avoided—[HON. MEMBERS: "Might have."]—well, that would have been something. My hon. and gallant Friend is merely trying to safeguard the future and saying that it would be a good idea if at a certain time there were an inquiry—not an internal audit or anything of that kind, but an outside inquiry.
The right hon. Gentleman says, "Well, there is to be an annual report in March, 1952. Had not we better wait for that?" The trouble is that we have had annual reports before. We have already had two on the working of the Corporation and they certainly were not satisfactory. When he says that it is, in his view, bad psychology to talk about any further inquiries into the work in the future, I think he is psychologically wrong. I think it is bad psychology on his part to slam the door on the possibility of anyone unconnected with the Corporation ever having a look at its activities, and that is exactly the point at issue.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I did not slam the door. I said I would reserve the right to have an inquiry some time, but I rejected this specific proposal.

Captain Crookshank: This is the door we are opening or shutting at the moment, and this is the door which the right hon. Gentleman did slam. I hope that my hon. Friend will be successful.

Mr. Alport: There is one point that is particularly relevant to the proposed new Clause and that is that the Secretary of State told us during the Second Reading debate that the new plan outlined in the memorandum of the Overseas Food Corporation was based upon the report of the Kongwa Working Party, and he said that it was the independent members of the Working Party who presented their report to the Corporation and upon whose report this revised Scheme is based. In actual fact that is misleading the Committee because, as the right hon. Gentleman perfectly well knows, that Working Party was only concerned with Kongwa and did not carry——

Mr. Griffiths: Of course, the hon. Gentleman will know that there were two working parties, one for Kongwa and one

for the Southern Province. There was a report for the Southern Province as well.

Mr. Alport: The right hon. Gentleman certainly did not make that clear in his speech. He made it clear that he was referring to the personnel of that Working Party when he put a question to my right hon. Friend about the personnel of that Working Party and asked him to suggest——

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I have misled the House. If he will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that I first of all referred to the members of the Working Party which reported on the Scheme for Kongwa. Later on, I said:
Similarly with the report that was made of the Scheme in the Southern Province."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1196.]
So I did inform the House that there had been two reports and indicated who were the members who made the reports.

Mr. Alport: Even so, that report does not cover the whole Scheme. It does not cover the Urambo section, which is a very important one indeed. Therefore, I still maintain that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider his reply to the proposed new Clause. He certainly misled me—and I listened very carefully to his speech—and I think he misled the House as a whole during that Second Reading debate.
The object of the new Clause is to ensure that after a period has elapsed an inquiry takes place to make certain that the lines upon which the new Corporation is working are effective. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying airy things about this Scheme starting in good will, and talking about the interests of the people of Tanganyika. The truth is that the interests of the people of Tanganyika are going to be betrayed again if, in addition to £36 million, another £6 million is thrown down the drain. We are being asked not only to vote £6 million from the taxpayers' money but also possibly to risk the benefits being lost, as the previous large sum of money has been lost, by the long-term suffering of the Africans in Tanganyika who might benefit from that money if it were employed properly.
I do not think anybody who really has at heart the interests of Africa in general,


and Tanganyika in particular, would refuse an inquiry which, if it reports that the Scheme is working on the right lines, will give great confidence to hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee, and, if it reports that it is working on the wrong lines, will then enable us to put it on the right lines and prevent this money from being wasted. It seems to me most suspicious, to say the least of it, that the Government time and time again should refuse any form of inquiry whatever into the Groundnuts Scheme.
We understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Corporation will submit a report. It has always been the same story. There is no hon. Member in this Committee who does not know that a report which comes from an interested party cannot possibly have the objec-

tivity which a report should have in a case of this sort. I do not care how eminent the members of a commission may be; a report which comes from the interested Corporation concerned will certainly not be as objective as it should be. Therefore, in the interests of the people of this country who are so concerned with the future of this scheme, in the interests of the people of Tanganyika which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, are by no means unimportant, and, not least, in the interests of the reputation of the Government and of the party opposite, the Government should change their attitude and have an inquiry.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 204: Noes, 243.

Division No. 53]
AYES
[9.45 p.m


Aitken, W. T.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lambert, Hon. G


Alport, C. J. M.
Drayson, G. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Drewe, C.
Langford-Holt, J.


Arbuthnot, John
Duthie, W. S.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Eccles, D. M.
Leather, E. H. C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W E
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Baker, P. A. D.
Fisher, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, A. T


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Fort, R.
Lindsay, Martin


Banks, Col. C.
Foster, John
Linstead, H. N.


Baxter, A. B.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Llewellyn, D.


Beamish, Major Tufton
Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe amp; Lonsdale)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Bell, R. M.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Gage, C. H.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Birch, Nigel
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bishop, F. P.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McAdden, S. J.


Black, C. W.
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Gates, Maj. E. E.
McKibbin, A.


Boothby, R.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maclay, Hon. John


Bossom, A. C.
Granville, Edgar (Eye)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Bower, Norman
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Harden, J. R. E.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Braine, B. R.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marples, A. E.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Burden, Squadron Leader F. A
Hay, John
Maudling R.


Butcher, H. W.
Heald, Lionel
Mellor, Sir John


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Heath, Edward
Molson, A. H. E.


Carson, Hon. E.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Monckton, Sir Walter


Channon, H.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hill, Dr Charles (Luton)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Colegate, A.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hope, Lord John
Nicholson, G.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P


Craddock, G B. (Spelthorne)
Howard, Greviile (St. Ives.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nutting, Anthony


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewtsham, N,.)
Oakshott, H. D.


Crouch, R. F.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)
Odey, G. W.


Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)
Hudson, W R. A. (Hull, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Kurd, A. R.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N)
Pickthorn, K.


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Pitman, I. J.


De la Bère, R.
Jeffreys, General Sir George
Powell, J. Enoch


Deedes, W. F.
Jennings, R.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Digby, S. W.
Johnson, Major Howard (Kemptown)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Keeling, E. H.
Profumo, J. D.


Donner, P. W
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Raikes. H. V.




Rayner, Brig. R
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Redmayne, M.
Stevens, G. P
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Renton, D. L. M.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Robson-Brown, W.
Summers, G. S.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Sutcliffe, H.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Roper, Sir Harold
Teevan, T. L.
Watkinson, H.


Ropner, Col. L
Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Russell, R. S.
Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D
Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Savory, Prof. D. L.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Scott, Donald
Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.
Wills, G.


Shepherd, William
Tilney, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Touche, G. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Turton, R. H.
Wood, Hon. R.


Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Vane, W. M. F.



Spearman, A. C M
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Wade, D. W.
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Vosper




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Ewart, R.
Logan, D. G


Adams, H. R.
Fernyhough, E.
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Field, Capt. W. J.
MacColl, J. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Finch, H. J.
Mack, J. D.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McGhee, H. G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R
Follick, M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Awbery, S. S
Foot, M. M.
McLeavy, F


Ayles, W. H.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Mainwaring, W. H


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Baird, J.
Gibson, C. W
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield E)


Balfour, A
Gilzean, A.
Manuel, A. C.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Glanville, James (Consett)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bartley, P.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.


Benn, Wedgwood
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mellish, R. J.


Benson, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Messer, F.


Beswick, F.
Grenfell, D. R.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Bing, G. H. C
Grey, C. F.
Moeran, E. W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Monslow, W.


Blyton, W. R
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moody, A. S.


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bottomley, A. G.
Gunter, R. J.
Morley, R.


Bowden, H. W.
Haire, John E, (Wycombe)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Mort, D. L.


Brockway, A. F
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moyle, A.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hamilton, W. W.
Mulley, F. W.


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Hannan, W.
Murray, J. D.


Broughton, Dr. A D. D.
Hardman, D. R.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hardy, E. A.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hargreaves, A.
O'Brien, T.


Burke, W. A
Harrison. J.
Oliver, G. H.


Burton, Miss E.
Hastings, S.
Orbach, M.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hayman, F. H.
Padley, W. E.


Callaghan, L. J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Tipton)
Paget, R. T.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)


Champion, A. J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Chetwynd, G. R
Hobson, C. R.
Pannell, T. C.


Clunie, J.
Holman, P.
Parker, J.


Cocks, F S.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Paton, J.


Coldrick, W.
Houghton, D.
Peart, T. F.


Collick, P.
Hoy, J.
Poole, C.


Collindridge, F
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Cook, T. F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Porter, G.


Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Proctor, W. T.


Cooper, John (Deptford)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Rankin, J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rees, Mrs. D


Crosland, C A. R
Janner, B.
Reeves, J.


Crossman, R. H. S
Jay, D. P. T.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Richards, R.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jenkins, R. H.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N)


de Freitas, G.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Deer, G.
Keenan, W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Delargy, H. J.
Kenyon, C.
Royle, C.


Dodds, N. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Driberg, T. E N.
Kinley, J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon Sir Hartley


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W Bromwich)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)
Simmons, C. J


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W)
Lindgren, G. S.
Slater, J.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)







Snow, J. W.
Timmons, J.
Wilkes, L


Sorensen, R. W
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Wilkins, W. A.


Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank
Tomney, F.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


Steele, T
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Usborne, H.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Vernon, W. F.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, W. T (Hammersmith, S.)


Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Wallace, H. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Sylvester, G. O.
Weitzman, D.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)
Wells, William (Walsall)
Wyatt, W. L.


Thomas, David (Aberdare)
West, D. G.
Yates, V. F.


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. (Edinb'gh, E.)
Younger, Hon. K.


Thomas, Iorworth (Rhondda, W.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)



Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wigg, G.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sparks.


Thurtle, Ernest
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B



Question put, and agreed to.

New Clause.—(COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF OFFICE.)

(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations for the compensation of persons holding offices or appointments under the Overseas Food Corporation in respect of their loss of such offices or appointments.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) of this section shall be of no effect unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.—[Captain Crookshank.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is put down partly in order to ascertain what the Government's intentions are with regard to compensating the staff and the members of the Corporation. It merely lays down that the Secretary of State should make regulations and that these should be subject to the affirmative approval of the House of Commons. It is not quite clear from the White Paper exactly what is proposed.
I think that through inadvertence, because of the lack of clarity of the White Paper, I may have misled hon. Members in the remarks I made in my Second Reading speech; but if I did the blame really lies upon Ministers for not having corrected the false deduction which I made, if it was a false deduction. On page 16 of the White Paper it is stated:
The employees of the Overseas Food Corporation will receive compensation on retirement of six months' salary or four months' salary plus the earned leave due to them.…A reserve of £400,000 is included to cover these liabilities.
I had assumed that that referred to all employees of the Overseas Food Corporation, wherever situated, whose services were to be dispensed with. I had imagined that the six months' salary suggestion was out of scale with what

has, in fact, already occurred, because members of the Corporation itself have already left that body, and in the accounts for this year we find a sum of £10,000 as compensation for them. It is common knowledge—because it has been reported to the Committee and I have repeated it—that the former chairman got rather more than 18 months' salary on leaving the chairmanship, and I gather that that was a tax-free payment. That being so, the suggestion that six months' salary was to be the general level of compensation was not, to my mind, exactly in keeping.
But I find it is not so at all, because I have since then been informed that, according to one correspondent from whom I have received a letter, the members of the London office staff have been offered, for clerical grades three weeks' pay for the first year's service and one week's pay for each succeeding six months, and for management grades one month's salary for the first year's completed service and half a month's salary for each succeeding six months. That, of course, is a very different picture from what at first sight one would have assumed from the White Paper. I hope that the Minister will make it quite clear for whom the six months' salary or four months' salary plus the earned leave due to them is intended as compensation.
There will obviously have to be a considerable cutting down of staff, and as far as we are concerned the biggest possible cutting down that can be achieved in London is highly to be desired. It is proposed, according to the White Paper, to reduce the staff of the London office from 170 now to 70 by the end of 1953. Whatever the rate of compensation these people get, that seems to us to be an extra-ordinarly slow reduction. That it should take over two years to reduce the staff


of 170, and that at the end it should still be 70 strong in London, for no very clear purpose when we are told that the main organisation is to be in East Africa, requires some explanation.
The right hon. Gentleman did say the other night that he would make some statement about compensation during the course of the discussion on this new Clause, were it to be called. I shall look forward with interest to what he has to say, and will be guided accordingly as to the further action my hon. and right hon. Friends and I will take in the matter. I am sorry that apparently the White Paper was so misleading. I am sorry, if it is true, that the staff in London are to get such a very low rate of compensation compared with their overseas friends and fellow employees, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could say something about it.
Perhaps I ought to have given the Minister of State notice, but he is so well up in all these details that I have no doubt he can tell us offhand something about the European staff—and the directors as far as that goes—who are concerned with what is referred to in paragraph 27 of the White Paper, Earth-moving  Construction Limited, which is a subsidiary organisation wholly owned by the Corporation. We should like to be quite certain that outgoing members of the Corporation, such as Sir Leslie Plummer and others, who leave the service altogether are not being recompensed as outgoing directors of this subsidiary as well as outgoing members of the Corporation.
If some of those points can be cleared up satisfactorily it will bring great relief to us, and I am certain to all members of the Corporation, who will be very grateful to know exactly where they stand. In order to give the Minister of State the opportunity which he says he is so anxious to take, I have moved this new Clause.

10.0 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Dugdale): I am glad to hear that the principal reason why the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) moved this new Clause was to secure information, because I am only too anxious to give it to him. Let me turn to the matters which he has mentioned. First,

the London staff. I think that he will be glad to know that there is nothing sacrosanct about the figure of 70. There will be reductions, and the figure may go well below the figure of 70. There is nothing at all fixed and definite about it, and there will certainly be considerable reductions.
By and large, the figures which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman gave as to compensation to be paid to the London staff are accurate. I would draw his attention to the fact that the staff association representing the London employees has in fact agreed to these terms. They consider them to be satisfactory, and a satisfactory agreement has been reached between the Corporation and the London staff association. [An HON. MEMBER: "On what terms?"] The terms were generally as described by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Captain Crookshank: Can we have something more authoritative; can the right hon. Gentleman himself say what they were?

Mr. Dugdale: I can say so in great detail. As regards the monthly staff, notice is calculated on the basis of one-twelfth of their period of employment with the Corporation or its predecessor, the Managing Agency, with the minimum of one month. Members of the staff entitled to a longer period of notice will, of course, receive such longer notice. In addition, they will get a retiring gratuity of one month's salary where 12 months have been completed and an additional two weeks' salary for every completed six months thereafter. The weekly paid staff will get one week's notice terminating their employment, a retiring gratuity of three weeks' salary in respect of the first year's service and an additional one week's salary for every completed six months' service thereafter. That is almost exactly in accordance with the terms stated by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Turning to the European staff employed in East Africa, they, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned, fall into two categories—those employed directly by the Corporation, and those employed by the organisation with the rather alarming title, Earthmoving and Construction Co., Ltd., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Corporation.


The compensation to be paid to the employees of O.F.C. who are mostly on "open service" contracts is as follows. They will receive on retirement compensation of six months' salary or four months' salary plus the earned leave due to them, whichever is the greater. It is important to note that this implements the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food in this House on 17th July of last year.
The case of the Earthmoving and Construction Company, Ltd., is somewhat different. Their employees were engaged on fixed-period contracts suited to the more temporary nature of their employment, and they will be dealt with in accordance with the terms of each of their individual contracts. I can only say that in this case, as in the case of the London employees, we have reached a satisfactory agreement with the employees in East Africa. The redundancy terms have been fully discussed with representatives of the staff in East Africa, and the Chairman of the Corporation assures me that the terms have been generally acceptable.
As regards the African staff, we do not envisage that there will be any great difficulty, because we think that most of them will in fact find other employment, and, indeed, many of them will find employment with the Corporation itself. In the case, for instance, of the African staff—skilled typists, clerks, tractor drivers and mechanics—there is considerable scope for employment under the reduced scheme, and they should find a part in that scheme. Some of them have been moved with their full families from the Kongwa district to the Southern Province or to Urambo. Owing to the substitution of hand labour for machines in some of the land clearing operations, there will also be a demand for unskilled labour. It is not generally the custom that African unskilled labour should remain in continuous employment, and there is ample demand for such labour throughout Tanganyika.
We think, therefore, that no hardship should arise. I should like to make it abundantly clear that we shall take every possible step to inform ourselves whether there is likely to be any hardship, and if there is any sign whatever that there is hardship to any individuals, we shall do everything possible to see that the welfare

of these African employees is assured—that must be assured, just as it is necessary to ensure the welfare of the European employees.
I, like other Members, have been to Kongwa. I was there for only a short time, but I did see the men at work. Whatever may be said about the Government—and I am not trying to make any political points about this—I think we are all agreed that the men about whom we are speaking, the men who are leaving and those who remain, have done very fine work under extremely difficult circumstances. Many have been full of the greatest enthusiasm for their work. I went round with men who had as much enthusiasm as if they had been on their own private farm. They have had a very hard time, naturally, with all the criticism that has inevitably arisen in connection with the work of the Corporation. I only hope that we can now tell them from here that we have confidence in their ability to make a success of the new Scheme, and that we realise its importance to the future of Tanganyika and to East Africa. Having said these few words, I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will feel that I have given the information he requires and that there will be no necessity to press the Clause.

Captain Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman has given me a great deal of the information I need, but there is one point I should like him to say something about, and that is whether or not those members of the staff who left prior to this dispersal that is to take place have terms of compensation of the same order as the compensation to be given from now on; whether they will be better or less well-off as a result of having left the Scheme earlier.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I think that the Committee would like to know a little more about this very important question of redundancy. On exactly what basis are the cuts going to be made, and can we have more details as to the method of computing the compensation? It seems to many of us on this side—and I suspect to some Members opposite—that in fairness to all concerned the first to go should be the older members of the Board, who must inevitably bear a very great burden of responsibility for


a series of disasters and mistakes, rather than the more newly recruited members who were invited, so to speak, at the end to bat on an impossible wicket not of their own choice.
It strikes me as being very curious that a Government that claims to have invented the principle of equality of sacrifice should pay to the former chairman of the Corporation, Sir Leslie Plummer, £8,000 compensation for termination of contract, representing about 18 months' salary, while for the field staff in Africa the compensation is six months' salary, or four months' plus leave, whichever is the greater. I cannot help feeling that if this Scheme had been under private enterprise and compensation for termination of contract had been assessed on this basis, we should have had a good many speeches from Members opposite about directors who do not earn their salary.
I think it is also right to mention that many members of the European staff in Africa have a genuine grievance about the promises which were made to them in order to induce them to go out to Africa. Many of them were told that if their work were satisfactory at the end of a year, they might be able to have their wives and families out with them. On their arrival in Africa they were told that the problem of accommodation for wives and families was quite impossible, and they were merely offered increased separation allowances. Many of those employees, upon whom inevitably the axe is now to fall, sold their furniture and disposed of their houses at home, thinking they were going to get a long-term contract in Africa. The responsibility for that lies entirely on the shoulders of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We want to know in more detail upon which sections the Overseas Food Corporation axe is to fall and a great deal more about the basis of compensation as between one grade and another.

Mr. Robert Carr: I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about these people in Africa working as if they were farming their own private farms. Those seemed rather odd words to use about a public enterprise of this kind. The point, which I want to make in supporting this new Clause, is that this country will have

much need in the years to come for people to go abroad on business of this kind. If we are going to draw volunteers for this sort of work, confidence in it is absolutely essential.
This Committee must not underestimate the loss of confidence caused by the failure of the Groundnut Scheme. Therefore, I wish to argue that it is essential that we in this Committee should do all we can to bolster up that confidence for the future, and one way we can do it is to ensure that the Corporation in its time of adversity acts as a good employer, and not only acts as a good employer but makes absolutely clear its intention in so doing. It has far from a good reputation as an employer at the moment, and there is much need to give confidence in that respect. I do not want to go into details, but there is bitterness and dissatisfaction amongst the staff.
Perhaps this bad treatment is exaggerated. Rumours breed on the fear of uncertainty, and it is that fear of uncertainty which I seek to remove in advocating the inclusion of this new Clause in the Bill, because there is all the greater need in this atmosphere to make clear our intention by expressing in an Act of Parliament the terms and conditions on which people's service can be terminated. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree to include this new Clause in order to give that extra confidence.
There are many points which want clearing up. In this White Paper there is reference to six months' compensation, but after hearing the statement from the right hon. Gentleman we feel that that is not quite right. He has given details which show that some people are getting more than six months' compensation, but in other cases certainly they will receive less. I would also commend to the Government the point made by my right hon. and gallant Friend about redundancy. How soon are these people to know? They ought to be told as soon as possible so that they will have some confidence as to their future.
I cannot agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) that those who should go first should be those who went first to East Africa. It can be argued that responsibility must fall to a large extent on their shoulders, but many of the first servants were carrying out a policy which


was imposed upon them from high up. I do not think that they should suffer because they were compelled, in the course of their duty, to carry out policies with which they did not agree.
10.15 p.m.
I have one other question for the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that there is considerable grievance and hardship to people who have been coming home from Africa on long leave, and who have received notice of redundancy either upon getting home or just before they left for home. What provision is to be made for these people to get back to Africa to have a reasonable chance of clearing up their affairs out there? Are the Corporation going to pay their passage to Africa for that purpose? This is an important point on which we should like an answer.
On the main point of building up the confidence in this sort of work which has been destroyed by the failure of the scheme, I press the Government to include the proposed Clause in the Bill so that we can look to a rebirth of the desire of people to go out and work in this kind of way, as will be essential for the building up of the prosperity of this country in the years ahead.

Mr. Hurd: We are now discussing compensation for loss of office. During the Second Reading debate the Minister told us that two members of the Corporation would be leaving the service very shortly. He mentioned Sir Donald Perrott and Mr. McFadyen. He paid proper and due tribute of appreciation to them for their services. We should try to get the picture complete in our minds, and should know whether members of the Board who are giving up office will be compensated, and if so whether the same terms will apply to them as apply to the salaried staff.
We all realise that there will be a much smaller Corporation, and we have discussed who might be on the new board in East Africa. It is clear that several members who have given good service and who, of course, have had their salaries and fees, will now be giving up their connection with the Corporation. We ought to hear what the position will be. I understand that Sir Donald Perrott will be continuing in Government service, but I wonder what the position will

be about Mr. McFadyen who, we all agree, has given excellent service. Will compensation be paid to them and to other members of the Board who are giving up their connection with it, now that operations are to be confined to East Africa?

Mr. F. Harris: This is a very important point, particularly for the staff. The Government must appreciate that in many cases it is through no fault of the staff that they are to be thrown out of work. It is a Government responsibility entirely. When so much money has already been wasted, the Government ought to see that we do not behave in a niggling way about the final compensation to the staff. It is not always easy to go straight into a new post, particularly for the administrative staff who are involved in this redundancy. I was pleased to hear that the figure of 70 for the London office is not cut and dried. Many of us feel that in due course that figure will have to be dealt with, so that in the end we use only buying agents in London instead of having a staff of 70. Whatever decision is taken now will have a great bearing upon operations later on.
There is no doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) has said, that a large number of the staff read the document to which he referred and got the impression that they were entitled to six months' compensation upon dismissal for redundancy. I have received many letters to that effect. A person in my constituency wrote to me only yesterday saying that in the London office he is only getting something like four weeks' total compensation. It is a great shame that this sort of thing should be put in documents in such a way as to be misread to this degree. It is not clear what the situation is, and the staff had every right to believe that they would get the compensation which the Government are now not awarding.
My other point is on the reference of the Minister of State to the African native staff. Something in the White Paper that always disturbed me very much was the utter rubbishy comment in paragraph 28, which says:
In any case, it is not the general custom of African unskilled labour to remain in continuous employment.…
The Minister of State has repeated that assertion today. Many of us know that, although a large number of Africans


naturally go from farm to farm and place to place, that is not so terribly out of proportion to what is done by many of our own workers, particularly female workers who like to go from factory to factory according to the local circumstances. A large number of Africans stay at the place where they were born and bred until they die.
What we are doing with these uprooting arrangements may have very serious consequences. The Minister of State has assured us that this will receive very careful attention and consideration, and I thank him for that assurance, but I plead with him personally to see that this is put into effect, because the reactions in Tanganyika and, indeed, the whole of the East African territories in due course if we do not play the game to the maximum with the African staff will be very serious.
I urge the Government to accept a Clause of this kind. Surely in coming to the conclusion that has, regretfully, had to be reached, that there must be very drastic curtailment, it is only reasonable to assume that as so much money has been spent in certain directions, the staff, who through no fault of their own are being declared redundant, should be compensated in no mean manner when they have to obtain new employment. There is no doubt that the White Paper has been gravely misunderstood by many of the staff, and I hope that the Minister of State will do something more than has already been indicated.

Air Commodore Harvey: If what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris) has said is true—I believe it is—that only four weeks' compensation will be paid to these men, the Government ought to state clearly that they will increase it. It is difficult enough to get men to go to any part of the Empire, particularly Malaya, as the right hon. Gentleman knows——

Mr. Dugdale: This is London staff.

Air Commodore Harvey: It is part of the staff, but the point I want to raise——

Mr. Manuel: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not read the document.

Air Commodore Harvey: Surely the London staff move out to Africa? If

not, they ought to. The point I want to make is that £8,000 was paid to Sir Leslie Plummer, free of Income Tax, which represents a colossal sum in taxed income. Why should a man who was responsible for the Scheme get this great plum while the staff get practically nothing? As to the London staff, we are told that 60 or 70 will be in London. I should have thought that two men would have been ample. All we need are two men and two typists and we could use agents to do the purchasing, despatching and make the travel arrangements. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but many businesses abroad are run on those lines, having two men in two rooms. When they start to make profits, then they can expand their offices.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee an assurance that more generous treatment will be given to these men. If they are to be fobbed off with a small amount, everybody will lose confidence, and those who stay on and do the real work, which we all want to succeed, will have no confidence in their bosses.

Mr. Dugdale: If I may first take the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey), I do not think he can say that people are being fobbed off and given ungenerous treatment. I have already said that the treatment which is to be given has been agreed with the staff associations. I do not think one can say that they are likely to allow their members to be fobbed off.
If I may now answer the question of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), compensation for those employees who left earlier depends on the condition of their contracts. It is not necessarily the same as the compensation I have now described. It will vary according to the conditions of their contracts. In reply to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe), the selection of individuals for redundancy is made by a personnel committee on which there is a representative of the staff from each region. So I think the staff have considerable opportunity for stating their case as to whether they think the redundancies are being made in a fair and proper manner.
The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr), suggested that there might be some


penalising of employees for being against the higher-ups. I can assure the hon. Member that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no such penalising. If he knows of any such case, I hope he will bring it to my notice, because it is something which this Government does not want to happen.

Mr. Carr: If I gave that impression, I did not mean to do so. Actually I was saying that I did not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) who, I thought, said that in deciding redundancies those first in should be first out. I said I felt that those first in often had to carry out policies from higher-ups with which they did not agree but which they carried out loyally. I certainly was not implying any victimisation.

Mr. Dugdale: I am glad to realise that. I had that impression and I wanted to get it straightened out. The only other point is that the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris), talked about African welfare and the difficulties that Africans might have in getting employment, particularly the trouble it would be for them to leave their jobs and go to others. I should like to repeat the assurance I gave before that, if we know there is any hardship, we will do our utmost to see that it is mitigated and that they get the fairest possible treatment, and we will safeguard their welfare in every possible way.

Mr. Hurd: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, would he say a word about compensation for loss of office for members of the Corporation itself?

Mr. Dugdale: Strictly speaking, I do not think it is in order, because the Clause talks about employees of the Corporation. I do not know, Sir Charles, whether I would be in order in referring to that?

Hon. Members: You might try.

Mr. F. Harris: Sir Charles, the Minister of State has not answered the point in the White Paper about compensation. Can we have this clearly stated? It says in the White Paper that the employees of the Overseas Food Corporation will receive compensation on retirement of six months' salary. Is that meant to be a general interpretation for everybody employed in the Scheme in London or

abroad, or is it not? If it is, I say that the Government ought in honour bound to see that statement through, so that those employees who have read that paper shall not be misled.

Mr. Dugdale: That statement applies to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, which I understand referred only to people out in East Africa.

Mr. Harris: I am sorry, Sir Charles, but it is not right that the Government should get away with this. Here is a clear statement in the White Paper which has guided all this next move. The Clause I have read out says quite distinctly that this implements a statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food in the House of Commons on 17th July, 1950. There is no word whatever that this applies only to employees in East Africa. I say quite definitely and without any doubt that the Minister should give the House an assurance now that the Government are prepared to honour what they have put in the White Paper. The employees have read it, they have written to me about it, and surely they must have written to other hon. Members. If they expect to be given six months' salary, they should be given six months' salary, and not be fobbed off by any Government in this country.

10.30 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: My hon. Friend is quite right. That is what caused all the confusion. At the beginning of my remarks I quoted that statement in the Second Reading debate, and it is a great pity that the Minister did not care enough, or was sufficiently well informed, to correct me for having misread it. As I and my hon. Friends misread it, it is not surprising that other people outside misread it and that, therefore, some members of the staff might have been under the impression that they were going to get this compensation.
On the other hand, I must say the right hon. Gentleman in his speech pointed out that compensation arrangements had been agreed to by the staff associations, and that to my mind rather cuts out the misleading impression that I had at any rate, as they are responsible associations which must have been in touch with their members. Perhaps by now the mistake has been rectified, but it is a great pity that


it has been allowed to run for about two weeks before we had an opportunity, or the Minister took an opportunity, of making a correction.
I apologise to all concerned for my misreading, but I do not consider myself any more wrong than the other people who read this for what it was worth. However, the right hon. Gentleman has explained, and I suggest that that will assuage slightly my hon. Friend's very righteous indignation, which we all share and which I share myself, about having been misled. I do not like it any more than the clerks and typists in London who were misled like myself.
To come back to the Clause, I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not chance his arm and answer the question put by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd). After all, the question was not ruled out of order and generally when questions are allowed to be put it is expected that they will be answered. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is now prepared to answer the hon. Member for Newbury. If so, it would simplify matters.

Mr. Dugdale: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would really like it, I certainly will, if I may. As stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food in the Second Reading debate on 20th February last, Sir Donald Perrott, the Deputy Chairman, and Mr. McFadyen will be leaving the Board shortly. Sir Donald Perrott was seconded from a Civil Service appointment and therefore no question of compensation arises in his case. In Mr. McFadyen's case compensation will be payable and he will receive £4,000, which is a full year's salary, and the Corporation will also pay him a pension of £620 a year to which he is entitled in accordance with their undertaking to him when he first consented to join the Corporation. That was part of the undertaking we consented to when he originally joined the Corporation——

Captain Crookshank: I am not a bit surprised.

Mr. Dugdale: —because he had pension rights in the Co-operative Society which he had sacrificed by coming to the Corporation.

Captain Crookshank: I am not surprised it was a bit difficult to get this

information from the right hon. Gentleman in view of its nature, but I do not propose to pursue it any further tonight for the reason that you, Sir Charles, would constantly check me if I went very far. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have a go."] No. because there will be other occasions when we can consider this in all its reactions. I should like to know what the contract is, and I am not prepared to express an opinion at this moment. We take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I am much obliged to him for being so courteous as to give the information to us, unpalatable as it was for him to give it to us—yes, because it has been all out of scale with the compensation we have been discussing.
Coming back to the original point raised, we put down this new Clause to get a full statement from the right hon. Gentleman on this subject and in the light of the statement, I do not propose to press the Clause now. I propose that my hon. Friends to-morrow consider very carefully what the right hon. Gentleman has said about compensation today, and if we deem it right, take further action upon this at a later stage of the Bill. Having heard it, and, not having had the opportunity of consultation, I do not propose to press the Clause, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Carr: Before the Question is put, may I point out that in my earlier remarks I asked the right hon. Gentleman one specific question to which I should like an answer. I asked him what would happen when a person, who received a notice of redundancy while at home on long leave or when about to leave Africa for long leave, had affairs in Africa which required to be cleared up. Would the Corporation pay his return fare to Africa to clear up those affairs, which, of course, he would not know at that time wanted clearing up?

Mr. Dugdale: As far as I am concerned this is a new question. I will look into it, and make certain the hon. Gentleman is acquainted with the answer.

Mr. F. Harris: Do I understand that the Minister will not live up to the statement in the White Paper—[Interruption.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to say "Ha! ha!". I hope some employee will take legal action against


the Overseas Food Corporation. There is a categorical statement, and it is shameful that they should get away with it.

Mr. Dugdale: I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the first line in Section 4 of the White Paper "European staff at present employed in East Africa by the Corporation and the Earthmoving Construction Limited …"

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SUPPLEMENTATION) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the payment of allowances out of the Industrial Injuries Fund with a view to supplementing workmen's compensation where the accident happened before nineteen twenty-four, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of National Insurance or any other Government Department in carrying the Act into effect; and
(b) if the Act applies subsection (1) of section thirteen of the National Assistance Act, 1948, so as to reduce the liabilities under the Act of the Industrial Injuries Fund by reference to the amount of any assistance grants, the payment out of the fund into the Exchequer of an amount equal to any such reduction.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SUPPLEMENTATION) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(SCHEME FOR SUPPLEMENTING WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION IN PRE- 1924 CASES.)

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after "before" to insert "the first day of January."
May I say, with regard to this and other Amendments which we have on the Order Paper, that we do not propose to detain

the Committee long nor to divide it unless something very unexpected occurs. We feel that this Measure requires some elucidation on particular points, because it is one of the most loosely drafted Bills I have ever seen. That, I am sure, is not the fault of the Parliamentary draftsmen, but is because the Minister cannot foresee precisely what may be required when the Bill becomes operative. At the same time, this is a Measure which will be of great interest to many trade union secretaries, insurance officials dealing with workmen's compensation, solicitors and other professional people, and I feel that one or two explanatory statements from the Minister may at this stage, be of great assistance.
The first Amendment which we have put down is in reference to subsection (1), which refers to
persons who are or have since the commencement of this Act been entitled to weekly payments by way of workmen's compensation in consequence of an accident happening before nineteen twenty-four.
I shall have a word to say later about the words "the commencement of this Act," but this Amendment deals with the words "nineteen twenty-four." I believe that the actual operative date, as far as these Acts are concerned, is 1st January, 1924. As far as I remember, the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementary Allowances) Acts, passed during the war, applied to all accidents which had occurred on or after 1st January, 1924. Therefore, I think that the accidents, to qualify for benefit under this Bill, will have to have occurred in the year 1923 or earlier.
It seems a little slipshod to put into a Bill the words "nineteen twenty-four"— not even, be it noted," nineteen hundred and twenty-four. "We are speaking of these accidents as if they were a vintage port, or something of that description. We are speaking of the "nineteen twenty-four cases" here. I think that, at any rate, it ought to be "nineteen hundred and twenty-four." It would make it even clearer still if we were to put in the actual date concerned, which I believe to be 1st January.

The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I do not think that we can charge the Parliamentary draftsmen with being slipshod. He may perhaps have erred on the side of an economy in words, but I think the intention in this subsection is clear. It refers


to men who were injured before the beginning of 1924, but if the right hon. Gentleman feels very strongly on this subject I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, to leave out from "scheme," to" and," in line 22.
By this Amendment I seek to leave out the words:
in respect of periods before the making of the later scheme …
Subsection (3) of the Clause provides that under the Bill a scheme may be made. In fact, more than one scheme may be made, because later schemes may vary earlier schemes. Subsection (3) goes on to say that the later scheme
may vary an earlier scheme …in such a way as to make allowances payable, or payable at an increased rate, under the earlier scheme in respect of periods before the making of the later scheme, and may also revoke an earlier scheme.
It is a little difficult to see why it is necessary for the later scheme to provide for retroactive operation for an unlimited period. It is perfectly true that under subsection (4) a scheme has to be laid in draft before Parliament before it becomes effective, and the Minister may well say that when she finds it desirable to provide for an amending scheme she wishes the allowances to be payable back for a period necessary to make the payments operative from the date when she lays the scheme before Parliament. But it does not seem to me to be necessary to provide by a later scheme that the payment of allowances may be made indefinitely retrospective.
10.45 p.m.
After all, although we all have great sympathy with these pre-1924 accident cases, we must remember that the supplementation of their workmen's compensation has to be made out of the Industrial Injuries Insurance Fund. That is a fund contributed to by people in employment at present, and by their employers, and by the Exchequer. The fund is, in a sense, a trust fund, and the Minister is, in a sense, a trustee for the proper handling of that fund. It does seem to be going a little far to take powers by a later scheme to increase allowances retroactively, and retrospectively, for an indefinite period. I hope the Minister will be able to give

us a satisfactory explanation of this somewhat unprecedented subsection.

Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. Gentleman said, a little earlier, that he thought the Bill was a loose Bill, or words to that effect, because he felt that I needed a certain freedom in the administration of the Act. He is correct, and subsection (3) illustrates what he has already said. He must recognise that although this is a Bill rather limited in its administration, it will be necessary for us to examine the cases of men who have been injured before 1924, right back to the end of the last century.
Not only have we to examine those cases which have been governed by the old Workmen's Compensation Acts, but we have to examine cases governed by contracting-out schemes. There are, I believe, something like 200 of these contracting-out schemes alone. Therefore, it will be necessary to examine individual cases. Perhaps there may be just one survivor of a contracting-out scheme. However carefully we pursue this work it may be that one or two men, or a group of men, are left out of the first scheme. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be the last to say that because these men were left out, through no fault of their own, that they should be penalised.
All that we are asking for is that if it happened that a few men were left out of the first scheme, and were then discovered to have been subject to a contracting-out scheme and ought to have been included, that we should be allowed to make a second scheme including them, and that then their supplementary benefits should operate from the beginning of the first scheme. Let me illustrate that by reminding the right hon. Gentleman of a contracting-out scheme—the Lilleshall Collieries Field Club. A certificate was given for this in 1897, and it was revoked on 31st December, 1907. Here is a club which we have to investigate. There may be an odd survivor who was subject to that scheme. Perhaps that man may have been left out, and surely the right hon. Gentleman would not deny us the right to make a supplementary scheme to include that man. We are asking for a little elbow room so that, in the event of one contracting-out scheme, or one group of men, being left out, they shall not be penalised.

Mr. Peake: I think that what the Minister has said is satisfactory. I wanted an assurance that these powers were not to be used to increase payments retroactively to a large number of men for a very long period. If, as the Minister has said, it is only to deal with exceptional cases, I fully concur, and beg to ask leave to withdrawn the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ronald Williams: I want to raise one point with my right hon. Friend concerning the question of entitlement under this Clause. It seems to me to be quite clear that the intention is that entitlement, as under all the Workmen's Compensation Acts, shall begin upon the loss of wage-earning power. In subsection (5, b) reference is made to this question of entitlement. Probably, it will help if I extract a few words from it which make me feel some doubt as to whether or not this particular part of the Clause carries out the intention. Paragraph (b)says:
a person shall be deemed entitled to weekly payments as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section at any time when he would be so entitled"—
and these are the important words—
if the amount he is earning"—
and, then at the end of the subsection—
were sufficiently reduced.
Taking these words, "if the amount he is earning were sufficiently reduced," the amount he is earning must necessarily be his post-accident earnings. That being so, this Clause seems to be addressing itself to a sufficient reduction of the post-accident earnings whereas, it seems to me, that the intention is that to enable the normal criterion of entitlement to be applied, there must be a reduction not of the post-accident earnings, but of the pre-accident earnings.
Consequently, it seems as if what is intended is that the pre-accident earnings shall be reduced before there can be entitlement whereas, on the other hand, some ambiguity is bound to arise if the impression is given that post-accident earnings are referred to. I have refrained from putting down an Amendment on this particular point. I see the intention is

perfectly clear, and I ask the Minister if she will look at this point between now and the Report stage of the Bill.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wish to ask the right hon. Lady for clarification on a point cognate to that of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams). The Bill refers to:
persons who are or have since the commencement of this Act been entitled to weekly payments.…
In other words, it envisages allowances being made under the Bill to persons who, since the commencement of the Act, have ceased to be entitled to weekly payments. I understand that one set of circumstances in which they might so cease to be entitled is that earnings might rise above a certain level. However. I take it that the definition in subsection (5, b,) to which the hon. Member for Wigan has just referred, is intended to bring these persons within the scope of those who are entitled to weekly payments, by assuming that their post-accident earnings are, in fact, not so high as to cause them to cease to be entitled to weekly payments under the existing Act. I am, therefore, led, until I am assisted by the right hon. Lady, to think that no category covered by the words. "who have since the commencement of this Act." shall be entitled to such payments. Perhaps, she will help the Committee by explaining the type of case where a person is no longer entitled to payments.

Mr. Peake: The point I want to raise on this Motion refers to
persons who are or have since the commencement of this Act been entitled to weekly payments by way of workmen's compensation.
The importance of this, of course, is that if a person commutes the ordinary weekly payments on a lump sum basis before the commencement of this Act, he will not have any entitlement under the Act at all and will be excluded from all the benefits of the Bill. Now in the ordinary way Bills have a subsection or Clause in them saying "This Bill shall come into force on such and such a date." This Bill has no such provision. It simply says:
since the commencement of this Act.
and presumably the Act will commence on the day when it receives the Royal Assent. That will probably be some


time towards the end of this month. It seems to me of some importance that the Bill should come into force a little earlier, because even at present, persons in ignorance of what they are to receive under this Bill are being offered lump sum payments and are, in some cases no doubt, accepting them in full discharge.
I have here one of several letters which I received about this Bill after the Second Reading debate. It is from a man who was injured on the railway in 1909, and this is what he says:
While on shunting duty in 1909 my heel got jammed in the points. I had nothing else to do but lie down and allow two coaches to pass over. I have recently come to the retiring age of 65 and I had to retire and was made to attend at court for possession of a cottage belonging to the railways. They offered me £125 compensation and 7s. 6d. a week pension for the loss of my legs and they have since increased the offer to £150 I went to court but the judge put off the case until I got a solicitor to act for me.
I am sure that the county court judge has acted very properly in this case, but this is an example not of a wicked insurance company or a private employer, but of the Railway Executive—a nationalised industry—apparently taking the case to court with a view to securing a lumpsum payment.

Mr. John Cooper: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the protection, which has been in existence for many years, provided by the registrar of the county court, to whom all settlements must come for approval before they are finally completed?

Mr. Peake: I did draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that in this case the county court judge had adjourned the matter until the injured workman had obtained the advice of a solicitor. It may be there are county court judges at present who are not aware of the terms and provisions of this Bill. Indeed, I should be very surprised if county court judges knew all the provisions of the Bill. No good lawyer ever reads a Bill before it becomes an Act because if he does so he gets into a state of great confusion as to what becomes the law. I give that elementary piece of instruction to the hon. Member.
There may be a prima facie case between now and the Report stage for considering whether or not the date of the

commencement of the Bill should be fixed at some slightly earlier date than the date on which it receives the Royal Assent. I do not expect the Minister to give a decision upon the matter tonight, but I hope it will be considered. Let it be made clear that I am making no attack on the Railway Executive by mentioning this particular case. It happens to be one case of a lump sum which has been brought to my notice and there may be many factors in that case, of which I am not aware, that justified them in bringing the case.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I want to mention very briefly a point relating to the one the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I am more concerned with the date of the commencement of the scheme than the date of the commencement of the Act, and my question is related to that. This Bill is, of course, purely enabling; and the Minister will, in due course, as she said on Second Reading, come to the House later with a scheme. We are told in the Explanatory Memorandum that allowances under the scheme will normally be payable from the date when the scheme comes into operation. So far as the men who are injured are concerned—and this is what worries most of us—the important date is the dale when the scheme comes into operation. I would ask the Minister whether that scheme, of which a draft has to be laid before the House and approved by the House, is ready yet, and can it be put before the House at a reasonably early date after the passage of the Bill.

11.0 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake) will agree with me that whenever a Bill goes through Parliament — whatever Bill it may be—cases of hardship arise during its passage. That is inevitable, and I do not suppose that this Bill will be an exception to the rule. It is unfortunate, of course, that the magistrates and the men who are concerned with workmen's compensation do not know what the provisions of a Bill may be; but most people, unfortunately, are not very interested in the business of the House of Commons.
With regard to the point that has been put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. I. MacLeod), the


time-table will, I think, be as follows. I cannot prophesy, of course, what will happen in another place, but assuming that we get the Royal Assent before the House of Commons adjourns for Easter. I hope to have the scheme ready on the resumption; then, as hon. Members have heard, it will be subject to an affirmative resolution; if the House agrees to the scheme, then it wil be necessary, of course, to constitute the board, and there will be certain work to be done; and I think the scheme will then come into operation—by that I mean that the first payments will be made—about the middle of the year.
With regard to paragraph (b) about which two hon. Members have asked, this deals with two classes of people who, though generally entitled to workmen's compensation, have not apparently the right to weekly payments. First, there are those cases where weekly payments are in abeyance because the workman's current earnings exceed his pre-accident earnings; second, there are those cases where the right has been displaced under paragraph 3 of the First Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, by a pension, benefit or an allowance from his employer. In subsection (5, b) of this Clause, a combination of both those cases is provided for.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) and I were aware of the intention of Clause 1 (5, b.) I think the point we were raising with my right hon. Friend was whether the drafting of the last few words was sufficiently expressive of the intention of the subsection. The words used are "were sufficiently reduced." The question my hon. Friend was raising was whether those words are clear enough an expression of the intentions of the subsection. We realise that the subsection covers the two types of cases that have been mentioned—those whose claim to weekly compensation is in suspension because their current earnings are equal to or exceed the pre-accident earnings, and those cases where they are in receipt of pension from the employer equal to or in excess of the weekly compensation payments to which they would otherwise be entitled. We fully appreciate that.
The question is, do the words

("b) a person shall be deemed entitled to weekly payments …if the amount he is earning or able to earn …were sufficiently reduced
express the intention? It would probably be clearer to say they were "singly or both lower than the pre-accident earnings." That seems to be what the Clause intends to say. Anyhow, I leave it to my right hon. Friend to consider whether, as a matter of drafting, the subsection could be made clearer.
On the question of the effective date of the scheme, when the Bill is passed, and the possibility that at this moment courts are agreeing to the conversion of weekly payments into lump sums, I offer the hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake), the suggestion that pre-1924 cases which are now being made the subject of lump sum payments must surely be very rare indeed. I fully agree that he has read out one case of a railway worker injured many years ago, and there may be other cases, but I think that the risk of serious disadvantage to numbers of compensation cases of pre-1924 vintage is rather small.

Mr. Molson: I think that the right hon. Lady did not fully appreciate the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake). Surely, it is not her intention, when a Bill is introduced to give relief to pre-1924 pensioners, that because they were not aware of the provisions of the Bill they should accept lump sum payments which would then debar them from obtaining the assistance and relief of the Bill. The right hon. Lady said that there were hard cases, and suggested that it was not possible for anything to be done about them, and that that would be an uncommon thing.
Let me assure her that that is quite contrary to general practice. There have been two notable Bills quite recently in which the date from which relief could be obtained was the date upon which the Bill was published. One was the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947. From that time the values were fixed. Similarly, in the case of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill, now before Parliament, the date was 22nd November, 1950. In both cases the intention was quite clear. One of the parties might be aware of the provisions of the Bill, and the other might not, and it really would be a very great injustice


if those people more alive to what is going on in the House of Commons were able to obtain an advantage that way. I do not ask the Minister to give an answer tonight. I think that this is perhaps a new point that was put to her, but I would ask her to consider it in a sympathetic spirit. We feel strongly about it because we think it would work a serious injustice, and we will seek to raise in on the Report stage of the Bill, by which time I hope she will be prepared to give it sympathetic treatment.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: There is yet another point about the Bill which troubles me. Before the Industrial Injuries Act most of the compensation was covered by insurance companies, and very frequently they made a settlement with the injured workman. The case had to be taken before the registrar, and if he was not satisfied it went before the county court judge. Obviously he, in the case quoted by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake) had not approved the settlement. But what is to be the position when this scheme is in operation? The insurance company will be liable under its policy in respect of payments under the old Act. The Government will be liable for the new supplementary payments.
If that is the case, suppose the workman chooses to ask for a lump sum, and a figure is agreed with the insurance company. The point is this: is that figure to include the redemption of the supplementary allowances out of this fund? If not, when the bargain has been struck, is the fund to continue paying the workman who has compromised in respect of the insurance allowance the supplementary benefits? The case is not envisaged by the Bill, but it is bound to arise.

Mr. Blyton: I would ask the Minister to consider the point raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake). There is nothing about the issue of commutation between the date the Act receives the Royal Assent and the date the scheme comes into operation. In my opinion, this Bill will cover few of the pre-1924 cases. Many of them are over 65. I was in a lodge recently and looked it up, and I found that 10 pre-1924 cases were all over 65. A man would have to be under 30 to get the benefit of this Bill.
In many cases this is a book transaction. We shall be transferring men from national assistance to benefit by right under this statute. The cost to National Insurance by requiring that this Bill shall operate in a commuted case between the Royal Assent and the date of this scheme will be triflng, but it will give some safeguard to those who do commute. We are on good ground here, because the Opposition accepted the principle in the National Insurance Bill that no commuted case prior to the passage of the Bill would receive attendance allowance or anything else. The suggestion put forward by the right hon. Gentleman is a reasonable one, and I advise the Minister to accept it.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(LIMITATIONS ON POWER TO PROVIDE ALLOWANCES.)

Amendment made: In page 2, line 31, after "before" insert "the first day of January."—[Mr. Peake.]

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, to leave out from "disease" to end of line 13.
Subsection (3) envisages that the decision whether a man is totally incapacitated or not arrived at for purposes of workmen's compensation shall also govern and decide the question whether he is totally incapacitated for the purpose of allowances under the Bill. But we have these somewhat mysterious words, that he may be considered totally incapacitated for the purpose of this Bill—although not so considered apparently for the purpose of workmen's compensation—
in such other circumstances as may be provided by a scheme.
I should like to know what circumstances the Minister has in mind for which these words are provided.

11.15 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: This subsection refers to those cases where there is a partial incapacity and, because of certain circumstances surrounding the work of the men, the cases are treated as a total incapacity. It will be recalled that men injured before 1924 were subject to the provisions of the relevant Workmen's Compensation Act, but in 1931 the circumstances which covered their position


were widened. For instance, a man who had been severely injured and was unable to get work in his own industry would apply to the employment exchange and would be told he could not have an unskilled job because there was unemployment in that industry. In other words, there was redundancy. The Act provided that a man in those circumstances could be treated as totally incapacitated. That is the background.
I am asked why I include these words: for the reason that we are anxious that men injured before 1924 should be treated as men who were injured after 1924 and were covered by the 1931 Act. The right hon. Gentleman may well say. "Why not put in something about the 1931 Act and make clear to the reader of the Bill what we are doing?" I agree that that would be a valid point. We have used this form of words because we recognise that in the case of men injured before 1924, most of them old men, there are special circumstances and we are anxious to adapt the 1931 Act to apply to the special needs of the 1924 cases.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, to leave out "that subsection" and to insert "subsection (2) hereof."
When I read the first words of subsection (4)—
For the purpose of paragraph (b) of that subsection
it took me a long time to find which subsection was referred to. I found a paragraph (b) in subsection (5) of Clause 1 and one in subsection (2) of Clause 2. I think this could be made a little clearer by inserting the words I propose.

Dr. Summerskill: I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. I confess that I do not like the word "hereof," but I am prepared to yield to the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, to leave out "in general."
As the right hon. Lady is being extremely accommodating this evening, may I also ask for a bare explanation of what the words "in general" mean in paragraph (a) of subsection (4)?

Dr. Summerskill: I hope the right hon. Gentleman observes that I am being accommodating only in small matters. "In general" should be read in conjunction with the second part of the proviso. It will be seen that the proviso says:
a scheme may also include provision for further defining the amount referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection and the principles on which it is to be ascertained.
It simply means that in framing a scheme we are anxious to ensure that in calculating a man's wages trivial changes from week to week shall not be considered, but that we shall consider wages over a period of weeks.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: A man's main average weekly pre-accident weekly earnings, or his post-accident weekly earnings are taken over a period, on an average, in workmen's compensation cases. These words are unique in this kind of legislation.

Dr. Summerskill: I would remind my hon. and learned Friend that the phrase used in the Workmen's Compensation Act are:
the average weekly amount which the workman is earning or is able to earn in some suitable employment or business after the accident.

Mr. Allen: I am referring to the words" in general."

Dr. Summerskill: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend would not quibble over words. When I say "in general" I mean over a period of weeks, and on an average.

Mr. Molson: I am sorry that the Minister is talking about quibbling over words. After all, our task here is to try to express in words that can be accurately interpreted and understood what is the intention of the Minister. These words are unique in this branch of legislation, and it is possible that they will lead to some discussion and argument. I would ask the right hon. Lady whether, between now and the Report stage, she could find words which will convey clearly to a judge who is called on to interpret the meaning which she has explained to the Committee. After all, she will not forget that the learned judge is not entitled to look at the debates of the House of Commons to understand words in an Act of Parliament. I think it would be advantageous to have an Amendment on


the Report stage to make more clear the point she is making.

Dr. Summerskill: I do not think that that is necessary. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the proviso he will see there will be no question of deceiving anybody. It says:
a scheme may also include provision for further defining the amount referred to in paragraph (a)…
We have no intention of departing from the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and we intend to define clearly in the scheme what we mean by "in general".

Mr. Molson: But the right hon. Lady says that the words "in general" were intended to refer to the proviso, which is 10 lines further down the page. No one would think the words are to be explained by the proviso.

Dr. Summerskill: I cannot agree. It says "in paragraph (a)."It refers back to paragraph (a.) There can be no question of people not understanding.

Mr. Houghton: I think we all have a general idea what the words" in general" mean and can derive some assurance from the fact that the only person who will have to interpret the words will be the Minister of National Insurance.

Mr. Peake: In view of the explanation, not so satisfactory as some which the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out line 23.
I hope that this is one of the points on which the right hon. Lady will be accommodating. It is one which I mentioned on Second Reading. The series of Acts since 1897 concern themselves, among other things, with seeing that a man is not penalised in his future workmen's compensation because at the time of the accident he happened to be under 21. I propose to leave out line 23 because that process has arrived, as I understand it, at one very odd result.
If a man who is under 21—let us say, 19 years—was injured, at subsequent reviews due regard will be taken of his reasonable prospects of advancement until presumably, and at no very long time, he reaches the top level or grade of his em-

ployment, which may not be reached, as appears to be assumed by these Acts, at 21, but may be reached, for the purpose of my argument, let us say, at 25. The odd result is that a man of 22 has no such advantage. A man of 22 cannot have taken into account the reasonable prospects of advancement which that man would have been allowed to, and, therefore, the man of 22, unlike the man of 19, cannot reach the top grade in his employment unless that grade be reached, as in many cases it is not, at the age of 21.
The only brief comment that I would like to make is this. The numbers involved must, of course, be very tiny indeed. The average age of these people is probably now nearly 70. The only point that I can see against the proposal that I have put forward is the suggestion, which would be quite true, that by improving the position of the people who were injured at 20 to 25 I am, in that respect, suggesting that the pre-1924 cases should be made slightly better off than the post-1924 cases. Frankly, I think it is about time they were, and I am not impressed by the argument that in that small sphere these people will be slightly better off than the post-1924 people. I hope for the reasons I have given that the right hon. Lady will look sympathetically at the point.

Mr. Oliver: What trade or calling has the hon. Gentleman in mind when he says that a person would not reach the top grade before attaining the age of 25?

Mr. MacLeod: I have not got a list, but there are many callings. It is not a question of 25; I merely mentioned that age to give point to my argument. In all grades of employment in which a man does not reach the top automatically by his 21st birthday, he can be penalised.

Mr. Oliver: Give one example.

Mr. MacLeod: I could give many instances in the farming and mining industries.

Mr. Powell: I hope that the right hon. Lady will accede to the request which my hon. Friend has made. At first sight it may appear as though the omission of line 23 will open the door rather wide, but it will not. The whole of this subsection is subordinate to paragraph (b) of subsection (2), which places a ceiling of 40s. upon the amount of allowance plus workmen's


compensation combined. We are, therefore, only dealing with cases where the prospects of advancement were within the ceiling of 40s. It is probable that those prospects would be achieved below rather than above the age of 21. Nevertheless, there may be a few cases—there probably are—where the prospects of reaching the maximum of 40s. are likely to fall after the age of 21. It seems only reasonable that those few marginal cases should be brought within the ambit of subsection (2) by the deletion of this line.

11.30 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I shall not dissent from the contention of the hon. Gentleman. There may be a few people over the age of 21 who should be treated in this respect as we treat the juveniles under the age of 21. But they cannot dismiss so easily the argument which they have already given me—and it is a strong argument—against accepting this Amendment. It has been recognised in Workmen's Compensation Acts, many of them passed at the beginning of this century, that the age of 21 years is the age which divides the field of juvenile employment from the field of adult employment. It would be quite wrong, in passing this Bill, to introduce a provision which would put a man injured before 1924 into a more favourable position than a man injured after that date.
Here, we are attempting to remove a great injustice, but hon. Members are now pressing me to establish a new injustice. This would create a new anomaly. It would establish a new category of workers who would ask me to introduce new legislation to amend the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. I ask hon. Members to recognise that the number of persons they are talking about is very few. By accepting this Amendment, a grievance would be caused to a large number of workers.

Mr. John McKay: It may be said that, in general, when men reach the age of 21 they come into the ordinary industrial scale. But I know, from my experience in the mining industry, that there is a class of men who have done what might be termed the hardest work in the mines—the hand-pushers. There were no ponies; the men had to do the work themselves. There was such a shortage of these men, and there was such difficulty in getting a sufficient number of them, that those doing this work carried on in this parti-

cular grade of work until they were 27 or 30 years of age. There is just a chance that there is a former hand-pusher who was injured before he was 21 years old. I understand that there was a limit of time in which these men must ask for a review of their wages, otherwise they lost the opportunity to do so.
If this Clause is widened, there is a possibility of that particular class of men having the opportunity to show, by a reasonable argument, that they could have been in a higher grade in the mines as time passed. Therefore, they would have qualified for a higher wage and would, of necessity, have had a bigger margin between the pre-accident wage and the post-war review than we have under this Bill. So, while it may seem that this Amendment would apply only to a small minority, the fact is that the whole of this Bill applies to a small minority. We desire to make this Bill apply in such an elastic manner as to cover the whole of these people. Therefore, I think there would be no harm in widening this Clause.

Mr. Robert Carr: There seems to be no doubt that prospects of advancement still exist after a person has reached the age of 21. An hon. Member opposite asked my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment to give examples. We have just heard some. I can testify that in the skilled trades associated with the foundry advancement still exists after the age of 21. I think it is a case of experience added to skill and, therefore, deserving, and getting, higher reward as age increases. If this prospect of advancement continues it seems to me an injustice not to take it into account.
The right hon. Lady argued that we must not create another injustice. This seems to be putting the argument into the world of topsy-turvydom. It seems to be a fact that a man suffering post-1924 injuries must also be experiencing an injustice if this prospect of further advancement is not taken into account. It seems a bad argument because one injustice exists to refuse to remove another one. I would like to press the right hon. Lady to try to remove this injustice in this case and set a good example so that in future we follow a good precedent and not a bad one.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: The Workmen's Compensation Act based compensation


upon the earning capacity of the man in the occupation in which he was employed. That was the standard. If the kind of principle in the Amendment were to come into the Act, there would be endless abuse, because a man in industry might come along and say, "I would have been a foreman, or a manager, or a mnaging director." The whole principle was based upon earning capacity on the date of the accident in the particular grade in which the man was working. This Amendment would open an endless stream of applications.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I fully realise the point made by the hon. and learned Member, but he is really taking my suggestion too far. My words leave in the words, "in his grade of employment." The only suggestion my words make is that a man, after 21 years and up to the top of that grade, should have the same rights as before. It seems a pity if we cannot remove what is admitted to be an injustice because it is said that it will create resentment. I do not believe that there would be resentment against this. I know what the main argument is against the Amendment I put forward; indeed, I outlined it myself when I moved it. That is the main and most serious objection to it, I agree.
However, in view of the feeling expressed, not only from one side of the Committee, I would like to have an undertaking from the right hon. Lady that she will look into this matter again. I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, partly because it is late and partly because I realise the argument against it. It is true that there are some people to whom an injustice can be done but I still hope that it will be put right. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, to leave out "and in other special cases."
I wish to obtain an explanation from the Minister of what kind of other special case is thought likely to arise besides those envisaged in the subsection, such as the case where a particular kind of employment has ceased to exist since 1924.

Dr. Summerskill: This is another case where I ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow us certain freedom of action in the field of very difficult cases. We have, in the proviso, made it clear that:

a scheme may make other provision for ascertaining the amount representing that loss where that class of employment has ceased to exist"—
and we have said:
in other special cases
because, although employment may have ceased to exist, it may be that the wage structure of industry has radically changed.
Let me illustrate this by reminding the right hon. Gentleman that although dock labourers' work is the same as it was 50 years ago the wage structure of their industry has altered. Therefore, it is very difficult to compare the pre-accident wage with the post-accident wage. This will give us a certain freedom to recalculate these wages under these circumstances.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to the right hon. Lady, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

SCOTLAND (WHITEINCH— LINTHOUSE TUNNEL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Pearson.]

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: In raising the question of the construction of the Whiteinch—Linthouse tunnel tonight, I would like to explain that I speak for the City of Glasgow. Last Thursday the City Corporation unanimously backed the demand for this new tunnel. Trade unions, employers, distributors of all kinds, passengers and the trade interests in the City are all agreed on the need for the tunnel. In this House, so far as Glasgow is concerned, the parties are united on this question and Parliament itself sanctioned the construction of the tunnel as far back as 1948. This new tunnel is not merely a desirable facility, but is an essential facility, for Glasgow at present has only four bridges, separated by not more than a mile in the centre of the city; and


moving west there are six miles of river front which lack modern cross-river communication.
The only method of crossing the river is by means of ferries which are quite inadequate. They carry, on the average, 35,000 passengers and over 3,000 vehicles per day, and this volume of traffic causes delay at peak hours. For vehicles whose drivers refuse to wait on the ferry the method of crossing the Clyde is to travel six miles along the river front and to cross in the city centre and move back along the opposite side. This is a fantastic method of progress in an age when we are crossing the Atlantic in a little over four hours. In fact, with the development of supersonic speed in the air I can visualise the time when to cross the Atlantic will take no more time than is now taken in crossing the River Clyde at Linthouse. It is absurd for the greatest shipbuilding centre in the world and for the premier city in Scotland.

Mr. Manuel: West Scotland.

Mr. Rankin: This mode of transport makes worse the existing congestion in the streets of a city which is already over-congested with traffic. The lack of the tunnel affects the supply of utility services such as gas, electricity and water, and I am assured by those who are engaged in our heavy industries that it is actually slowing down production at a time when the Government are appealing to every employer and workman to increase productivity to the utmost.
I understand that the Minister of Transport is entirely sympathetic to the claim which we in Glasgow have presented and which I voice tonight, but I am led to believe that the nigger in the woodpile is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That being so, I want to present to him the demand—or request, perhaps, I should say—that he will consider the position that the city is now faced with with regard to its development. The Secretary of State for Scotland has laid it down that our local authorities must present by 1st July this year plans for the re-development of their areas. In Glasgow, owing to the narrow nature of its streets, and the fact that they are entirely unplanned, a new system is absolutely indispensable.

Sir William Darling: The premier city!

Mr. Rankin: I have no time to argue with the hon. Gentleman. If we had more time I should deal with him in a kindly fashion.
If there is to be a proper plan for the development of the City of Glasgow then it must be based on a completely new road system. In the outer ring in that road system which is visualised the Whiteinch-Linthouse Tunnel is an integral part.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Would not legislation be required to make the provision of this tunnel possible?

Mr. Rankin: As I pointed out at the beginning, legislative sanction has already been given by Parliament and the problem that now presents itself to the City Corporation is not that of getting Parliamentary sanction but of convincing those in authority of the need for prosecuting this work immediately. That is my business tonight, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
As I said, the Minister of Transport is sympathetic, and I hope that he will tell us that he will do all he can to help forward our effort. One thing he can do, and I am pressing him to do it now, is to grant the Corporation the necessary finance to carry out the preliminary work in preparation for the construction of the tunnel, which is an integral part of the development plans for Glasgow which must be submitted to the Secretary of State for Scotland by 1st July, or, if he so decrees, a little later.
Then there is the other suggestion, that if the necessary finance for the tunnel itself is not forthcoming from his Ministerial purse my right hon. Friend should approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer and put this project before him as a work that is necessary as far as the defence requisites of the city are concerned. Because of the small number of bridges at present in existence if, unhappily, in the event of war, any bridges were to be put out of action then chaos would reign in the city. From that point of view, I submit that this tunnel should be treated as a necessary project in the defence plan for Glasgow.

Mr. William Ross: What amount of money is involved in this project?

Mr. Rankin: The amount involved in the preliminary work of carrying out the borings that are necessary to find the proper course for the bridge is in the neighbourhood of £76,000. The total amount involved in the construction itself is about £2,500,000. Both of these figures are, of course, insignificant in the light of the astronomical amounts we deal with so easily in this House. I urge the Minister to use his influence in the proper quarter to ensure that Glasgow Corporation, if they were to decide to go ahead with the project on their own, would be given the necessary powers to raise a loan to carry out this essential project.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. J. N. Browne: As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, I and my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side have been worried about the question of this tunnel for a very long time. Before Christmas my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) and I had a meeting with the Minister and pressed him at least to sanction the preparation of plans. I am very glad the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) has also raised this point and demonstrated the solidarity of the House on this matter. One point he did not mention was the urgent need for a trunk road north to south in the West of Scotland. It is quite wrong that the City of Glasgow should have to bear all the trunk traffic; it should be able to go through a tunnel instead of through the centre of the City. Estates such as Hillington are developing rapidly and are suffering because in the city there is this bottleneck. If only the Minister were the hon. Member for Govan he would know the difficulty of getting across the city, it is a difficulty that everyone experiences who works on one side of the city and lives on the other.
In conclusion, I want to name some of the authorities in Glasgow who have recommended this tunnel—the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, Ltd., the Chief Constable, the Clyde Navigation Trustees, the Chamber of Commerce, the Merchants' House, the Glasgow Trades Council, the Scottish Division of the Road Haulage Executive, the Clyde Shipbuilders' Association, the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the Associated Blacksmiths' Forge and Smithy Workers Society, the National Union of Seamen,

the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives, the Renfrew County Council, the Glasgow Institute of Architects, the Scottish Building Contractors Association, the Western Regional Hospital Board, the Scottish Gas Board, the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, and Sir Robert Inglis, who has been appointed by the right hon. Gentleman to examine the traffic position in Glasgow.

11.57 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): My hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) began by emphasising that the whole of the interests in Glasgow are behind this proposal, and that has been strongly supported by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Browne). I am not surprised to find that everyone in Glasgow supports it. I do not know any highway scheme that is not supported by everybody in the locality—obviously so, because any scheme that the authorities of a district submit for consideration is bound to represent advantages locally. Therefore, I find that as a general rule it commands universal support.
With regard to this particular project. [have had the opportunity of 'becoming acquainted with all the arguments in favour of the scheme, because on two occasions I have met fully representative delegations from the Glasgow City Corporation. In addition, hon. Members of the House who represent Glasgow constituencies, both individually and collectively, have forcibly impressed on me from time to time the need for this development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston referred to my sympathy, and that, again, is obvious. Any Minister is anxious to further the work of his Department. Naturally, a Minister of Transport is anxious to carry out any highway improvement that will facilitate the movement of traffic, meet the general convenience of the public and facilitate the process of trade. But I think hon. Members are fully aware that in recent years the Government have had to exercise the most stringent control of capital expenditure. As I have explained on more than one occasion, the sums which have been allocated to the Road Fund do not provide the amount necessary to carry out any constructional work.
When I met representatives of the Glasgow City Corporation I made it clear


to them that I could not sanction the scheme. I conveyed that verbally to them and in December of that year the City Corporation addressed a communication to me in which they asked for authority to proceed with the expenditure of £75,000 to do the preparatory work, but they accompanied that request with a further suggestion that it should carry with it authorisation for the scheme itself. I have been unable to do that, and I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that I cannot go beyond the undertaking that I then gave to the City Corporation.
In discussing preliminary work, it is easy to give a wrong estimate of the items which are small in relation to the total cost which, in the case of this scheme, is a formidable one. In March, 1948, when one of the Corporation's Private Bills was before us, the figure of £2,880,000 was given as the total cost of the scheme. Since then, costs have risen; but there is no need for me to stress that. The first time it was put to my Department that we should consider favourably the preparatory work in connection with these development plans the figure of £26,000 was mentioned to me, but I do not want to labour that. On that occasion I said that if this was vital to Glasgow City Corporation and they themselves were then prepared to accept the cost of doing the preparatory work, provided it was agreed with my Department that what was essential and only what was essential to meet the preparatory work should be done, I would consider giving them an undertaking that when the scheme was finally agreed—though no date was mentioned—I would consider it for grant. That is as far as I have gone in any of my meetings with the Glasgow City Corporation representatives and I regret that I cannot go beyond that this evening.
On 12th February, I replied to the Corporation's request of December and conveyed my view very clearly to them. I must emphasise that the Road Fund only permits the maintenance of our existing road system to a standard of between 60 and 70 per cent. of what it was before the war, and that there is a large number of similar schemes, many of which—although I do not wish to draw comparisons between the importance of a scheme to one city and the importance of schemes to other parts of the country—have far

greater claims than the Whiteinch-Lint-house tunnel. I have given this matter full consideration and regret that I am unable to go beyond the offer which so far I have been able to make to the Glasgow City Corporation.

Mr. Hoy: I notice that my right hon. Friend used the figure of £26,000 in connection with the preparatory work, while I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) that the sum involved is £76,000. I think we ought to be clear as to which figure is correct. While Glasgow Corporation may be quite willing to undertake an expenditure of £26,000, they may not care to face up to a sum in the neighbourhood of £76,000.

Mr. Barnes: The figure of £75,000 emerged at the last meeting that I had with the Glasgow City Corporation representatives, and I did not rule that out. What I said to them in my reply of 12th February was that there could be no commitment in respect of the main project and that I could not approve any expenditure on preparatory work unless it could be shown to be immediately essential for planning purposes. I only referred to the £26,000 because that was the first figure mentioned to me when we were considering the proposal. I may say that the Secretary of State for Scotland himself presided over that meeting. When one goes into a meeting with a figure in one's mind and is confronted with another figure, one wonders whether that is the figure. I did not get far at that meeting, but I undertook to reconsider the matter.
Arising from that, the Glasgow City Corporation wrote to me on 20th December and confirmed that the figure they now wished to spend on preparatory work was £75,000. That would have possibly been open for consideration, because hon. Members must bear in mind that this is a Class I project which carries with it a grant of 75 per cent. In that case, a large measure of responsibility is thrown upon me. In conveying to me that the sum now was £75,000, the Corporation gave a broad outline of what preparatory work was necessary—the employment of consulting engineers to prepare plans and contract documents; the making of trial borings in the river bed and the testing of materials; the acquisition of certain properties on a line to the northern


approaches of the tunnel which the Corporation consider necessary to make available to the consulting engineer at the outset of the work.
They said, in their letter, that the development plan
for the first five years is definitely intended to include the tunnel project and the relative approach roads.
They also said that they
are seeking authority as a matter of urgency for the whole project, and not merely for the preparatory work.
Hon. Members will see clearly that putting language of that description into a request to me, arising from an interview, that I should consider the preparatory work, was asking me to commit myself to the whole project. As I have been trying to explain tonight, in view of the other commitments that we have, it is not possible for me to give any undertaking that an expenditure of this description can be incurred.

Mr. Rankin: I wish to raise a point concerning the £26,000. So far as I understand the cost of the work of construction is not disputed, although while £2,800,000 is now possible, I would point out that £2,500,000-odd was the cost when it was first put forward. But, as far as I understand, the constructional engineers, those who prepare the plans, and so on, get 3 per cent. of the total cost of construction. Three per cent. of the cost of construction amounts to the figure which the Corporation have mentioned—the figure that I mentioned of £76,000—so I do not understand how the Minister gets the figure of £26.000 at all.

Mr. Barnes: I thought I had made it clear that I was not labouring the point of £26,000. What I did say was that that was the first figure that was submitted to me as the cost of the pre-

paratory work. I went into that conference with the Glasgow City Corporation representatives, with the Secretary of State for Scotland in the chair, to see if it was possible to come to an agreement on that figure. It was at that meeting that the second figure of £75.000 was submitted to me. I was not disputing the desirability or the need or the justification for the £75,000. Certainly, I have not considered that sum, but I was prepared to consider whether the same offer that I was going to make with regard to the £26,000 should be made with regard to the £75,000.
Whether it is £26,000 or £75,000, I think it follows that the same obligation rested upon both myself and the Glasgow City Corporation, especially as the national funds would ultimately have to contribute 75 per cent. of this expenditure. They should agree with my Department as to what amount of work was actually necessary to meet the point of preparing their development plans which have to be deposited with the Secretary of State on 1st July, of which great play has been made.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: Would it not be possible, at any rate, for the Minister to say that this £75,000 could be expended, that he would allow the permits, and that it would be possible for this preliminary work to proceed?

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order

Adjourned at Fourteen Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.